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

A. On June 27, 2003, the Defendant was authorized to implement the reconstruction project of this case, including the F apartmentH shop (hereinafter “former H shop”) newly constructed by the Seocho-gu Office under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “the instant reconstruction project”), which was established to implement the reconstruction project (hereinafter “the instant reconstruction project”).

The former HSang, which owned by 23 persons, including the plaintiffs, in the form of co-ownership of the building and the site, is located in the center of the instant project zone. The ratio of shares of the plaintiffs A is 10.04%, 6.37%, 6.37%, and 1.18%, respectively, of the plaintiffs E.

Plaintiff

E on February 14, 2007, the same year after purchasing the shares from a person who was a sectional owner of the former HH.

3.9. The transfer registration was completed.

B) On the other hand, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor publicly announced the modification of the master plan for the development of J apartment zone around December 2002. According to the above master development plan, the minimum size of the site for the central facility site is required to be at least 1,000 square meters (in the case of less than 1,00 square meters, the minimum size of the site for the neighboring facility site shall be at least 1,000 square meters (in the case of less than 1,00 square meters, it shall be combined with the neighboring site and shall be at least 1,00 square meters). The existing site area of the Gu HH in the center of the instant project area is at least 85.872 square meters (the original site area was registered as at 846.872 square meters according to the Gu registry, etc. on H stores), but it was erroneous as at least nine square meters, which was changed to the total area of 85.872 square meters around June

C. In order to implement the instant reconstruction project, the Defendant: (a) was necessarily required the site of the former HH; (b) the former HH did not consent to the instant reconstruction project by opposing that some of the equity right holders move the location of the commercial building to the surrounding area from the center of the instant project area; and (c) on July 30, 2004, the Defendant was 46 equity right holders, including Plaintiff A, B, C, and D, as the court heading on July 230, 2004.