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

The defendant is the implementer of the project of the project of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, D, E, approximately 11,865,000 square meters (in this case, the change to 11,86,00 square meters) which is promoted in Busan Metropolitan City, and the project of the project of the project of the project.

Plaintiff

A on October 29, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 66/196 square meters of shares of 196 square meters in G G, Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, and of 23.14 square meters of a house of 23.14 square meters of a house of Pyeongtaek G, Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City 196 square meters of its ground in the instant business area, and of 36.36 square meters of a house of Pyeongtaek wood string string roof, and of 23.14 square meters of an animal-related facility of Pyeongtaek H large 405 square meters of a house of 16.53 square meters of a house of 16.53 square meters of a house of 16.53 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). The Plaintiff B acquired the ownership of the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

The progress of the instant project is as follows.

On December 14, 2012, 2012, on July 12, 2012, the public notice of the residents' public inspection for the designation of Busan F Waterfront (hereinafter referred to as the "public notice of this case") was made on May 16, 2013, the defendant, on September 5, 2014, issued a public notice of the Busan F Waterfront development project's designation and implementation plan approval, etc. on September 5, 2014. Accordingly, on the real estate of this case on December 27, 2013, the plaintiff Eul agreed with each defendant about the payment of compensation, etc. on the real estate of this case on December 24, 2013, and the defendant concluded a contract on the registration of the transfer of ownership with each of the real estate of this case on January 16, 2014.

After concluding each of the above contracts, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of a person subject to relocation to the housing site supply in relation to the instant business, and the Defendant did not recognize that the Plaintiff had continued residence with the Plaintiff on June 30, 2015.