1. Based on the appeal by Plaintiffs A, C, D, G, and H, the part against the above Plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

1. Basic facts, the plaintiffs' assertion, relevant statutes, and facts of recognition are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 5th to 15th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e)

2. Formation and scope of obligation to pay the settlement money;

A. Under Article 47(1)1 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, a project implementer shall liquidate in cash land, buildings, or other rights within 150 days from the date of falling under the application for parcelling-out, in cases where the owner of a plot of land, etc. fails to apply for parcelling-out, according to the procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree. Here, the time when the obligation to pay liquidation money arises for the owner of a plot of land, etc. who has not applied for parcelling-out, shall be deemed to be the following day of the expiration date of the period of application for parcelling-out prescribed by the project implementer pursuant to Article 46 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da37780, Oct. 9, 208) (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da37780, Jul. 24, 2013; 206Da47714, Apr. 21, 2017).

3. The plaintiffs claim that the period of late payment for the liquidation money is the day following the period of application for parcelling-out, but the above Supreme Court's decision also ruled that the following day of the application period for parcelling-out shall be the day when the obligation to pay the liquidation money occurs, on October 9, 2008.