1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the list Nos. 1 through 16, 18 through 40, 42, 45, 47, 50, 52 and 55 of the plaintiffs' list are listed.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiffs' claim is a public corporation that performs the creation and supply of sites and housing construction business for the stabilization of people's lives and the promotion of public welfare, and in calculating the pre-sale conversion price (sale conversion price) where a publicly constructed house was directly constructed on the housing site developed by themselves, the housing site cost should be calculated as the supply price of "public housing site" under subparagraph 2 (d) (ii) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Rule

[Attachment 3] However, in the case of public housing sites supplied by the defendant under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the cost of the housing site shall be calculated as 70% of the cost of the housing site development in accordance with the attached Table 3 of Article 18(1) of the Housing Site Development Business Guidelines. However, in calculating the sale price of the apartment of this case, the defendant calculated the cost of the housing site as 10% of the cost

The relevant laws and regulations, such as the Rental Housing Act, on the calculation of the pre-sale conversion price of rental housing, are mandatory regulations, and the part that the defendant erroneously paid to the defendant for the calculation of the housing site cost, which exceeds the legitimate selling price, is null and void. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return each corresponding amount as stated in the attached Table 2 of the Calculation Table as unjust enrichment

Even if it is reasonable to calculate the cost of each of the above sales prices calculated as 100% of the cost of housing site development, the defendant was paid the sales price exceeding the legitimate sale price and the upper limit thereof under subparagraph 1 (b) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act by calculating excessive construction cost, etc. of each of

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the excess amount to the plaintiffs within the scope of each claim amount above.

3. Calculation of each unit sale conversion price of the instant sales contract.