1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 11, 2001, the Defendant obtained the approval of the housing construction project plan from the head of Yangju-gun, received the funding from the National Housing Fund, and decided to construct the G apartment 19 Dong-dong 883 households (hereinafter “instant apartment”), a public construction rental house, on the 37,952 square meters of land in Yangju-gun and 21 lots. Around August 22, 2001, the Defendant received the approval of the public announcement of the recruitment of the apartment of this case from the head of Yangju-gun-gun-gun and made the public announcement around that time.

B. After the public announcement of the above recruitment, the Defendant concluded each lease contract with regard to each of the relevant apartment units listed in the attached Table “location” column with the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each of the relevant leased apartment units of this case”).

C. After September 6, 2006, 1/2 of five years, which is the mandatory rental period of the apartment of this case, the Defendant obtained approval for conversion for sale in lots from the two main markets over 10 times from around that time to April 14, 2010, and concluded a sales contract with respect to 867 households among the apartment of this case (excluding 16 households, including each of the leased real estate of this case).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 5, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs are tenants who are the head of a homeless household with preferential ownership at the time of conversion of the apartment of this case into sale.

The Plaintiffs have requested the Defendant to convert the leased real estate into parcelling-out price under the Rental Housing Act. The Defendant did not file an application for approval of conversion into parcelling-out for each of the leased real estate in this case, and has deferred the procedures for conversion into parcelling-out for the Plaintiffs on the grounds of the Defendant’s rehabilitation procedures.

Accordingly, with respect to each of the leased real estate of this case by the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, the Plaintiffs fall under the “sale conversion price 1” column of the attached Table, which is the pre-sale conversion price lawfully calculated.