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

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers) and the purport of all pleadings:

The Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land A (hereinafter “instant land”) was designated as a development restriction zone as a natural green area.

As a part of the "public rental housing construction project", the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City would promote an urban development project under the Urban Development Act on the instant land, and publicly notify the instant land on October 30, 2003 by making a decision to modify the urban management plan to cancel a development restriction zone B, a public announcement of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on October 30, 2003, and publicly notified the designation of the D Urban Development Zone and the development plan on November 10, 2003. On November 26, 2003, Defendant SP Corporation (hereinafter "Defendant Corporation") designated as the implementer of the D Urban Development Project (hereinafter "the instant project"), and publicly notified the alteration of the ED urban development plan and the implementation plan as the public notification of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on December 27, 2004.

After that, on February 3, 2006, the Defendant Corporation deposited the compensation on March 20, 2006, with the expropriation ruling by the Seoul Regional Land Tribunal (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”) for the owners of the land, etc. whose agreement was not reached due to the consultation with the owners of the land, etc. in the instant project zone.

Based on the instant project, the present project is almost completed, such as the completion of public rental apartments on the ground of the instant land.

The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs lost their ownership due to the expropriation ruling of this case as the original owners of the land of this case. The designation and development plan of the project of this case and the authorization and announcement of the implementation plan of this case promoted and implemented by the defendants for the following reasons are null and void, and based thereon.