The judgment below

Among the parts against the defendant against the plaintiff A, B, E, L, and M, this part of the case is reversed.

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

1. As to the scope of the person subject to the relocation measures that the defendant is obligated to install basic facilities

A. According to Article 23 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 8376 of Apr. 11, 2007), Article 78(1) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”), Article 40(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2072 of Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”), the owner of a building who has not been subject to relocation measures under the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Act No. 8376 of Apr. 11, 200); Article 3 of the Addenda provides that the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (hereinafter “Act”).

On the other hand.