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

A. On August 1, 2008, the Defendant is a project executor of a X-general industrial complex development project (hereinafter “instant industrial complex”) designated in the site of 142,00 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si and Wriwon 142,00 square meters, and the Defendants are the parties to whom the said industrial complex was sold by the Defendant or the right to sell the said land from the existing buyer.

B. On November 27, 2009, the Defendant obtained approval of the project implementation plan of the instant project, and started to supply the factory site on November 26, 2010, and began to supply the factory site, and obtained the completion of the project on December 31, 2012.

C. On November 26, 2010, the Defendant, while publicly announcing the first supply on November 26, 2010, published the following: “The unit price of supply (unit price) shall be supplied on the basis of the development cost (769,270 square meters) and the unit price of lots shall be divided by lots, and as such, there may be an increase or decrease depending on the result of the final survey after completion of the construction project. The unit price (unit price) shall be estimated development cost, calculated on the basis of the final final final settlement cost and the final final final determination area calculated on the basis of the total project cost actually invested after completion of the construction project (presumed in December 2012). As for the advance paid before completion of the construction project, the payment was made together with the content that “I would deduct the interest from the final settlement cost (one-year maturity deposit rate of Si bank) from the final settlement amount

After the completion of the instant industrial complex formation project, on September 9, 2013, the Defendant determined the final development cost for the factory site of the instant project as KRW 759,121 per square meter, and determined it as selling price, and settled the sales price to the Plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 28 (including both virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Enforcement Decree of the former Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22894, Apr. 6, 2011) alleged by the Plaintiffs.