Plaintiff 5, Avishai Junger's transfer of the venue of the hearing, repeated a version similar to that of the transfer of the venue of the Cohen hearing, when in his case I also found to determine that he knew that a lease contract had been signed with the manager and even knew about clause 15, including the possible risk that the manager would take the land back into his possession. His testimony clearly showed that the warnings that were revealed to him dissolved in the spirit of his eagerness to sign the contract. Mualem's relocation of a hearing venue Junger consciously chose not to share Mualem's relocation of a hearing venue by saying that he and his friends were required to write in contracts a lower sum than they had paid, out of concern that Mualem's relocation would refuse to sign the contracts. He, too, was not bothered by the signing of an illegal contract and false reports to the tax authorities, and he too reflected to his friends a representation that did not correspond to reality when Mr. Sidon raised concerns that the land would be taken back. Like his friends, Junger did not turn to examine the matter with his attorney, moving a concealed meeting place, or with the seller, moving a meeting place in Goren, or in the offices of the manager. The late occurrence in 2016, in the form of the manager's announcement that he intended to take the land back, cannot cure the early failures of the transfer of the Junger hearing place.
Plaintiff No. 6, Mr. Benya Zidon, admitted that shortly after the contract was signed, he already clearly knew that the manager might make use of his right to return the land to his bosom. The fact that he did not act to cancel the contract at that time, according to him, stems from the fact that he saw himself as part of a group and did not want to act alone. Therefore, to the extent that he claims that his damage has intensified over the years, he has nothing to complain about except himself. Anyone who testifies that the warning bells rang loudly within him, and yet he chose to silence them because his friends ignored him, cannot claim that the Administration's demand in 2016 to return the land to his lap seemed to him to be a surprise that he did not know existed. Mr. Sidon knew about clause 15 and the possibility of taking the land upon signing the contract, and he also knew about it some time later. Any other claim on his part in this matter is not reliable to me.