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

A. On January 20, 2006, Plaintiff A, Nonparty C, and D entered into a real estate sales contract with E to purchase KRW 135,847 square meters of forest land in North-gu, Mapo-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for KRW 2 billion (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); Plaintiff (a) lent G’s name for KRW 62,152/135,847 of the instant real estate; (b) for shares 41,322/135,847 of the instant real estate; and (c) Plaintiff A completed the registration of transfer of shares due to the instant sales contract under the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court on March 3, 2006, for shares 32,373/13 of the instant real estate; and (d) Plaintiff A completed the registration of transfer of shares due to the instant sales contract under the title of G.

B. On February 8, 2006, the head of the north-Si/Gun/Gu issued to the Plaintiff, etc. a written confirmation of land use plan stating that the use area of urban management planning under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) with respect to the instant real estate was “management area, agricultural and forest area,” “tourism and resort development promotion district,” “tourist resort development promotion district,” and “Class 2 district unit planning zone.”

C. At the time of February 8, 2006, the instant real estate constituted an agricultural and forest area under the National Land Planning Act. Since the drawings managed by the Defendant for issuing a written confirmation of land use planning for the instant real estate was partially overlap between the boundary lines of the instant real estate and neighboring real estate, a public official affiliated with the issuing authority of a written confirmation of land use planning for the instant real estate in issuing a written confirmation of land use planning for the instant real estate, indicating to the “tourism and resort development promotion district” and “Class II district unit planning district” which do not constitute the said real estate, the land use planning confirmation certificate as of February 8, 2006 is issued differently from the actual land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they were issued by the defendant around February 2006.