1. The defendant shall calculate the amount of unjust enrichment in attached Form 4 to the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 6, 2006, the Defendant decided on February 6, 2006, to perform park extension works (hereinafter “the instant expansion works”) with the content that the park of 1.6km from the park tunnel located in Seongbuk-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the seat of the same Gu from the park tunnel to the seat of the same 1.6km road from the 6nd line to the 8th line from the 6nd line.

B. On March 22, 2006, as the Defendant was incorporated into the road zone of the instant expansion project, the Defendant publicly announced the relocation measures to ensure that one of the purchase rights of apartment units or relocation subsidies within 85 square meters in the Seongbuk-nam Housing Site Development Zone (hereinafter “the instant housing site development project”) or 60 square meters in the case of a tenant is selected as a part of the relocation measures against the Plaintiffs who lose their base of living due to the expropriation of their owned housing units or land, etc., and one of the purchase rights of apartment units or relocation expenses within the said zone in the case of a tenant.

C. According to the announcement of the above relocation measures, from May 2006 to November 2006, Plaintiffs A and B entered into a sales contract with the Korea National Housing Corporation, Plaintiff C with the Korea Forest Corporation, Plaintiff D with the Korea Forest Construction Corporation, Plaintiff D with the Korea Forest Construction Corporation, Plaintiff E with the Korea Forest Construction Corporation, and Plaintiff E with the Korea Housing Construction Corporation, and one apartment household within the housing site development project district of this case to purchase the amount corresponding to each of the items listed in attached Form 5. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs paid each of the corresponding payment amounts listed in attached Table 6 by the relevant final payment date listed in attached Table 7.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 11, 15, 42, 66 through 69, 72, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The laws that form the basis for each of the contracts for sale in this case alleged by the plaintiffs were amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007 and enforced from Apr. 18, 2008, as amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007.