1. The plaintiff F's action shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall make a statement of unjust enrichment calculation in attached Form 1 against the plaintiff A, B, C, D, and H.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 2004, the development plan was approved because the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City IJ, K Ilwon 3,495,248 square meters was designated as L Development Zone under the Urban Development Act (hereinafter “instant development zone,” and the development project of the instant development zone was designated as the operator of the instant development project, and the Defendant was designated as the operator of the instant development project.

On January 15, 2004, the date of announcement for public inspection of residents to designate the development zone of this case as an urban development zone is January 15, 2004.

B. On October 19, 2004, the Defendant publicly announced the relocation measures for the instant development project on November 20, 2002 (or August 20, 2002, a single tenant, a three-month period prior to the base date) on the base date for relocation measures.

C. Meanwhile, the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government N 152,813.6 square meters was designated as a place of development reservation, and was incorporated into the instant development zone only on October 8, 2007.

The Defendant publicly announced a compensation plan under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665, Oct. 17, 2007; Act No. 8665, Jun. 24, 2004; Act No. 3-2, Feb. 3-2, 2006, Feb. 3-2, 2005; Act No. 8135, Oct. 3-2, 2005; Act No. 8136, Oct. 18, 2007; Act No. 7816, Oct. 18, 2007; Act No. 7444, Feb. 3-2, 2006; Act No. 7803, Feb. 3-2, 200, etc.

E. The Defendant decided to specially supply apartment buildings to be developed within the instant development zone (hereinafter “instant apartment buildings”) as part of the measures for relocation under the former Public Works Act, in which they lose their means of living due to the expropriation of their owned housing, etc. as a consequence of the incorporation into the instant development zone.

The sale price for the above special supply was determined as the same amount as the sale price for the apartment sold to the general public.

F. Accordingly, the Defendant concluded a sales contract for the instant apartment as indicated in the “seller” column of the attached Form 2 sales contract sheet, such as the buyer’s entry in the same sheet.

(c).