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

A. The Defendant Union is a partnership established for the land readjustment project in Daegu-gun D, F District D, and the land rearrangement project (the land rearrangement project in the first E district and the F District land rearrangement project were divided into two groups and divided into the Defendant Union around June 2004), and G worked as the head of the partnership from the time of the establishment of the Defendant Union until June 3, 2007.

B. At the time of September 10, 2005, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with G head of the Defendant’s association to purchase a total purchase price of KRW 1.369 billion of land allotted in recompense for development outlay in the instant project district (hereinafter “instant land allotted in recompense for development outlay”). Plaintiff A paid KRW 70 million on September 10, 2005 and KRW 100 million on September 10, 2005 to each G. Plaintiff B paid KRW 100 million on September 10, 2005.

C. On March 7, 2006, J, a director of IB, prepared a written confirmation that “The land involved means the sale of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay or prior sale witness G,” which read “sale of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for the Plaintiff” (see, e.g., the record of the testimony), which would be deducted from the purchase price at the time of settlement and confirm that the certificate of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay will be paid to the president of the partnership,” and signed it at the bottom of the document.

G issued a copy of the above confirmation to the plaintiffs. D

G was prosecuted on June 4, 2008 by committing misconduct, such as occupational breach of trust, etc. at the time of the head of the association, and on October 22, 2008, the first instance court of the first instance (Seoul District Court 2008Dahap458, etc.) (Seoul District Court 2008, etc.) decided to arbitrarily dispose of the development recompense land of this case at the Defendant association’s office until the payment of the development recompense land of 77,770m2, which was secured by reducing the land of the union members, in order to attract the achievement military office, as the president of the association, is managing and keeping the development recompense land for the Defendant association until the payment of the land to its members, and around August 2005, the instant development recompense land of this case is K, L, Plaintiff, etc.