1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs (hereinafter "stock company's name") are omitted.

) The vehicle shall be each garage in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoldong (hereinafter referred to as “each garage in this case”).

2) The Defendant accepted each of the instant depotss in relation to the Mapo Urban Development Project as the implementer of the Mapo Urban Development Project and the Eunpyeong New Town Urban Development Project.

B. On October 19, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs regarding the acceptance of each of the instant depotss (Seoul Southern District Court 201Gahap1225), and on October 19, 201, the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a decision of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “the instant decision of recommending reconciliation”). The instant decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive on December 1, 201.

1.(a)

By September 30, 2011, the defendant (the plaintiff in the above land transfer case), the plaintiff (the plaintiff in the above land transfer case), the plaintiff (the defendant in the above land transfer case) shall deliver the front garage in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and leave the above garage, and the plaintiff 00 transportation shall transfer the front garage in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the defendant 3 shall move out of the above garage, and the plaintiff 3's Youngwon transportation shall transfer the front garage in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and shall move out from the above garage.

2. As to the land indicated in attached Table 1’s list 495.86 square meters inboard, the Defendant and the Defendant and the Plaintiff: (a) as to the land indicated in attached Table 1’s Schedule 1’, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were attached Table 2(1) in sequence connected each point; (b) as to the land indicated in attached Table 1’s Schedule 1’s list 5.86 square meters in sequence connected each point; and (c) as to the land indicated in attached Table 1’s Schedule 1’s list 1’s list 495.86 square meters inboard, the Defendant and the Plaintiff were attached Table 2(2)’s list 1’s list 1’s list 1’s list 1’s list 1’s list 1’s list 1’s list 2’s list 495.86 square meters in line with each point.