1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is the plaintiff AG, A, AH, AI, B, C, AJ, D, AK, AK, E, F, AM, G, H.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is as follows. Except for the removal of part 1's "D." (section 4, 9 and 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part 1's "D." (section 4, 22 through 5, 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance) is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The defendant announced the compensation plan on October 11, 2004 according to the progress of the project of this case. After that, the plaintiff, Q, R, J, T, and U, who owned the house within the project district of this case, and the remaining plaintiffs, V, X, Z, AB, and one apartment house of this case (the apartment house of this case was sold to the defendant, and the area of each of the land in this case's "sale price" and each of the above "sale price" column 60" as "the area of each of each land".

As part of the measures for resettlement, the apartment of this case was sold in lots from the defendant, or succeeded to the status of the buyer in the sales contract from the buyer.

According to Article 78 (4) of the former Public Works Act, the cost of installing the basic living facilities shall be borne by the project operator and it shall not be borne by the person subject to relocation measures, but the defendant calculated the sale price including it and concluded a sales contract.

Therefore, this is applicable.