1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is the cause of the instant claim. Plaintiff A was the owner of the land and building in Seo-gu in Gwangju, and Plaintiff B and C had the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial cost as the lien holder with respect to each of the instant buildings. In the case of G real estate auction at the Gwangju District Court G real estate GJ, etc., Defendant D and E were public officials belonging to the Republic of Korea and Defendant D, and E were forced to evade the instant real estate due to procedural violations, such as the manipulation of official documents, the order of delivery of real estate without due process, and forced to withdraw the Plaintiffs’ workplace and facility construction, and the products within Maart. As such, the Defendants who committed unlawful acts in the process were jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff A for damages, and were obligated to pay KRW 2.5 billion to the Plaintiff, KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, and KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff.

(E) On February 2, 200, Defendant Republic of Korea asserted that the instant claim constitutes a duplicate suit in the same lawsuit as the case of return of unjust enrichment by the Gwangju High Court 2015Na14487 (Seoul High Court 2015dadan28277), and the case of return of unjust enrichment by the Gwangju District Court 2015Gadan41522, and that the Plaintiff’s act of filing multiple lawsuits is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, the Plaintiff’s intentional act is contrary to the intent to attract the Defendants.

In this case and each of the above unlawful gains return cases, the subject matter of the lawsuit is different, and it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiffs' filing of the lawsuit in this case is against the principle of good faith due to abuse of the right of lawsuit solely on the grounds that the defendant Republic of Korea claims that the lawsuit in this case is filed against

3. As to the plaintiffs' damages claim of this case, Gap, Nos. 5, 6, 14, 15, 18, 18, and 5.