1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff T shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case against the plaintiff T shall be dismissed.

2. The first instance.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts and relevant statutes are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 6, No. 14, No. 13, and No. 14). Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant, as to the legitimacy of the plaintiff T's lawsuit of this case, filed a lawsuit against the defendant with the same content as this case, and thus, the above plaintiff's lawsuit is unlawful and asserted as unlawful.

If the same subject matter of a lawsuit has been filed differently, the lawsuit brought later is unlawful because it violates the principle of prohibition of double lawsuit, in which case the parties and the same subject matter of a lawsuit have different time.

In this case, the criteria for determining the judgment of the previous suit and the subsequent suit will be based on the time when the lawsuit is pending, that is, after the time when the written complaint or the written application for modification is served to the defendant.

(1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on November 25, 1994, seeking return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount exceeding the reasonable pre-sale price under the Rental Housing Act’s relevant laws and regulations. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit again on December 27, 2012 with Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na7796, Nov. 29, 2012, etc.). However, on August 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for return of unjust enrichment regarding the households listed in the [Attachment] No. 2012Ga71012, among the apartment buildings in the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on August 21, 2012, and the present previous lawsuit filed again on December 27, 2012 with Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2016Na2019444). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and evidence No. 19.

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part of the plaintiff T's claim is unlawful against the principle of prohibition of double lawsuit.

3. With respect to each of the households described in [Attachment 23, 26, and 44] among the instant apartment units, the Plaintiff W, Z, and NA’s determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff W, Z, and NA exceeds the reasonable pre-sale conversion price stipulated in the relevant laws and regulations of the Rental Housing Act.