The judgment below

Among them, the part against the Defendant against the Plaintiff T and U is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court held that Plaintiff AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AK, AM, K and Nonparty Z, AA, and AB (hereinafter “Plaintiff AG, etc.”).

(1) The former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Act on Public Works Projects”).

(1) As to the Defendant’s assertion that Article 78(1) and Article 40(3)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722 of Feb. 29, 2008) constitute grounds for exclusion from the person subject to relocation measures, Article 6 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the former Public Works Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722 of Dec. 30, 2002) (hereinafter “Annexed Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree

(2) Under the premise that a person who meets the requirements of ownership and residence as of the date of public announcement of the compensation plan for each of the project in this case shall be subject to relocation measures prescribed by the Urban Development Act and the former Public Works Act, even though the time of acquiring the ownership of an unauthorized building constructed before January 24, 1989, does not fall under an unauthorized building under Article 40(3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act even after the time of acquiring the ownership.