A Co., Ltd. constructed Pyeongtaek-si C Apartment (hereinafter “instant rental apartment”) for the purpose of lease with the funding from the National Housing Fund.

B. At around 200, Plaintiff D, E, F, and H, and I leased an apartment as indicated in the column for “Dong and Hoh” in the attached Table from the Defendant among the rental apartment in this case (However, H leased an apartment as indicated in the column for “Dong and Hoh” No. 477 of the above table, and I paid each purchase price to the Defendant by setting the amount stated in the column for each “sale price” in the attached Table from around December 2005 to March 206, 206, after the lapse of the mandatory lease period of five years, after the lease period of each apartment as stated in the attached Table was set as the price for each apartment leased with the Defendant (hereinafter “each sale contract in this case”).

C. On April 25, 2006, Plaintiff D succeeded to the apartment as indicated in [Attachment Table 477] No. 477 of the rental apartment in this case from H on April 25, 2006 by inheritance through the division of inherited property, and succeeded to H’s rights and obligations regarding the sales contract of the above apartment. Plaintiff E, F, and G succeeded to the rights and obligations of Plaintiff E, F, and G’s heir in [Attachment Table 505] among the rental apartment in this case.

On December 31, 2009, the defendant was established by division from B on December 31, 2009, and succeeded to all rights and obligations of B on the sales contract of the rental apartment in this case.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiffs asserted in the parties, while entering into each of the instant sales contracts, the defendant actually invested construction costs according to the standards prescribed by the relevant statutes, such as the former Rental Housing Act and the Enforcement Rule.