1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants is revoked, and the Plaintiff A’s defendant who falls under the revoked part.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (1. acknowledged facts). Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The court's explanation of this part of the arguments by the parties is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (2. the parties' assertion). Thus, the court's explanation of this part is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. Determination

A. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment are as follows: (a) the Defendants, who are the project implementer, added “the Defendants,” in Section 6, 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance, to “in the absence of special circumstances,” and (b) the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance;

가. 부당이득반환청구권) 기재와 같으므로, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다. 나. 소멸시효의 완성 여부 ⑴ 관련 법령 및 관련 법리 ㈎ 관련 법령 [지방재정법] 제82조(금전채권과 채무의 소멸시효) ① 금전의 지급을 목적으로 하는 지방자치단체의 권리는 시효에 관하여 다른 법률에 특별한 규정이 있는 경우를 제외하고는 5년간 행사하지 아니하면 소멸시효가 완성한다. ② 금전의 지급을 목적으로 하는 지방자치단체에 대한 권리도 제1항과 같다. [민법] 제168조(소멸시효의 중단사유 소멸시효는 다음 각 호의 사유로 인하여 중단된다.

1. Demand;

2. Attachment, provisional attachment or provisional disposition; and

3. Article 170 (Demand by Judicial Proceedings and Interruption of Prescription) (1) In the case of dismissal of a lawsuit, dismissal or withdrawal, the interruption of prescription shall not be effective.

(2) In the case of the preceding paragraph, if a judicial claim, intervention in bankruptcy proceedings, seizure or provisional seizure, or provisional disposition is made within six months, the prescription shall be deemed interrupted by the first judicial claim.

§ 178. After suspension.