1. The part against Defendant E in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The scope of this court’s judgment: (a) the Plaintiff initially filed a claim against the Defendants for share of the rearrangement project costs; (b) the Plaintiff’s claim for share of the rearrangement project costs against the Defendants; and (c) the court of first instance dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s claim for share of the rearrangement project costs against the Defendants; (d) partially citing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants E and H among the Plaintiff’s claim for share

As to this, the Plaintiff appealed only for the part against which the Plaintiff lost among the above unjust enrichment or tort damages claim, and Defendant E also appealed only for the part against which the Plaintiff lost.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the above rearrangement project cost is separately determined, and the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the claim for the above unjust enrichment or the claim for damages caused by tort.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was authorized by the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 31, 2009 to implement a housing redevelopment and improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”) on the land of 106,661.8 square meters of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government L, as a housing redevelopment and improvement project partnership established with the approval of the establishment from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 27, 2008, and as a project implementation by the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The Defendants were the Plaintiff’s members as land owners in the instant project zone, but did not apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out (from June 8, 2009 to July 13, 2009, from July 14, 2009 to August 6, 2009) or withdrawn the application for parcelling-out before the expiration of the period of application for parcelling-out.

B. The Defendants owned each land and building indicated in the “real estate” column under the table within the instant business area.

C. On January 28, 201, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation of each of the above lands and buildings on March 18, 201 on the commencement date of expropriation and on March 18, 2011, refers to the following ruling of expropriation: