1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Common factual relations;

A. The Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land (hereinafter “instant land”) was designated as a development restriction zone as a natural green area.

B. As part of the "public rental housing construction project", the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City intended to implement an urban development project under the Urban Development Act from the land in this case, and as to the land in this case, he decided to revise the urban management plan to cancel the development restriction zone as the CN on October 30, 2003 and announced it. On November 10, 2003, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City announced CO publicly, announced the designation and development plan approval (hereinafter "the notice of this case"), and on November 26, 2003, Defendant CL Corporation (hereinafter "Defendant Corporation") designated as the implementer of the CP urban development project (hereinafter "the project in this case") in accordance with the above development plan. On December 27, 2004, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City announced the alteration of the CP urban development zone and the approval of the implementation plan.

C. After that, on February 3, 2006, the Defendant Corporation deposited the payment of compensation on March 20, 2006 with respect to the owners of the land, etc. whose agreement was not reached due to an agreement on compensation with the owners of the land, etc. in the instant project zone (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”).

Based on the instant project, the present project is almost completed, such as the completion of public rental apartments on the ground of the instant land.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap No. 1 to 8, and the ground for appeal

2. The key point of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was the original owner of the instant land, whose ownership was lost due to the instant expropriation ruling. The designation of the instant project zone and development plan, authorization and announcement of the implementation plan, which was implemented by the Defendants for the following reasons, are null and void, and the instant expropriation ruling is also null and void.