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

A. On November 8, 2006, Busan Jin-gu E, Busan (hereinafter “instant improvement zone”) was designated as an improvement zone pursuant to Article 4(2) and (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents as the Fro-ro announced by Busan Metropolitan City on November 8, 2006.

B. The Defendant is a redevelopment and consolidation project association under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) established for the purpose of implementing the D Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”).

C. On August 29, 2007, the head of Busan District Government announced the project implementation authorization for the defendant as G G in Busan District on August 29, 2007

Plaintiff

A is the owner of H 219 square meters, I road 42 square meters, and its ground buildings located in the business area of the defendant, and the plaintiff B and C are the co-owners of the plaintiff J 155 square meters and its ground buildings located in the business area of the defendant.

(Plaintiff B 138/155, Plaintiff C 17/155, E).

During the period for application for the parcelling-out of housing members (from May 15, 2017 to July 5, 2017) determined by the Defendant, Plaintiff A filed an application for parcelling-out of housing with the Defendant on June 27, 2017, Plaintiff B, and C on June 20, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “instant application for parcelling-out”).

F. The Defendant received an administrative disposition plan around June 28, 2018, and notified the members including the Plaintiffs that they should conclude a sales contract within a certain period, or did not conclude a sales contract with the members.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Gap 2 to 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

3. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The 1st Plaintiffs filed an application for parcelling-out with the Defendant, but thereafter they declared that they will not conclude a contract for parcelling-out on the grounds that it is unreasonable to calculate the liquidation amount, and Article 44(5) of the Articles of Incorporation of the Defendant A.