2. Whether the Defendant’s land substitution determination is made in the attached list.

A. The Defendant is an association established by the former Land Readjustment Project Act (repealed by Act No. 6252, Jul. 1, 2000; hereinafter the same) and was the implementer of the land readjustment project in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant project”). On October 4, 201, the Defendant obtained business authorization from Incheon Metropolitan City and publicly announced land substitution disposition regarding the instant project on October 24, 201.

B. The land indicated in the “previous Land” list in the Plaintiffs’ list (hereinafter “instant land before the instant land substitution”) was substituted by the land indicated in the “land for confirmation of land substitution” column in the annexed list according to the said land substitution disposition (hereinafter “land after the instant land substitution”). Accordingly, the land substitution liquidation amount was imposed.

On October 21, 2014 and November 20, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for a commission to the competent registry office for registration of the land following the instant replotting disposition.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant application”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the entire pleadings

2. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant, upon the submission of the instant reply, refused to entrust the registration to the Plaintiffs on February 27, 2015, refused to request the registration of land substitution, and sought revocation of the disposition rejecting to request the registration of land substitution made by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on February 27, 2015. However, the instant reply is merely an answer to the purport that, when the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of illegality in failure to request the registration of land substitution against the Defendant, “the Plaintiffs are liable to pay the land substitution settlement money, but the Plaintiffs are not obliged to pay the land substitution settlement money in full, and the Defendant has justifiable reasons to withhold the request for registration, and it is difficult to view the instant reply as a disposition rejecting

Therefore, this part.