1. The plaintiffs and the plaintiff's successor's claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. B Day was incorporated with the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Project District for the Gangnam Metropolitan City Expressway (D) Construction Project (hereinafter “instant project”). The instant project implemented by the Mayor of the Seoul Metropolitan Government is determined as urban planning facilities (road) by means of public notification E ( May 30, 2002) and the Seoul Metropolitan Government public notification E ( November 13, 2008), and the implementation plan for urban planning facilities (road) project was authorized by the Seoul Metropolitan Government public notification G ( November 28, 2008) and the Gwangju Metropolitan Government public notification I (No. 12, 2009) and the Gwangju Metropolitan Government public notification of the Seoul Metropolitan Government (No. 12, 2009).

B. As part of the measures for relocation of the owners of houses who lose their base of living due to the expropriation of the housing owned by the Defendant as incorporated into the instant project district, the Defendant decided to supply 200 households out of L apartment houses, which were scheduled to be sold in the implementation of the residential environment improvement project in the K district in Gwangjin-si, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the said owners by lot. The Plaintiffs were selected as the said 200 special suppliers.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation for each apartment unit listed in the Dong and lake column of the attached Table, and paid all the sales price on the date indicated in the payment date of the attached Table.

During the process of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor M succeeded to the status of the sales contract for the instant apartment, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor N,O, P, and Q succeeded to each of the status of the sales contract for the instant apartment as to Plaintiff R, S, T, and U, 1/2 shares among the status of the sales contract for the instant apartment.

(hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs and the plaintiff's successors" collectively). (No dispute exists with the grounds for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 12 (including the number of pages), and this.