1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the Housing Redevelopment Project Association whose project implementation district includes the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Il-gu 283,260.7m2 as the project implementation district.

The Plaintiffs are co-owners of the land and obstacles listed in the attached list in the project implementation district concerned (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Defendant was authorized to implement the project on September 4, 2007 by the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the head of Seodaemun-gu”).

The defendant establishes a management and disposal plan and obtained the approval from the head of Seodaemun-gu on June 26, 2008.

On June 11, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to the Seoul Administrative Court (2008Guhap28714) to revoke the above management and disposition plan, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 11, 2009 by the Seoul High Court (2009Nu19177) and by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2010 (2010du6038) as the dismissal of appeal.

C. The Defendant obtained project implementation authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu on November 7, 2011.

From November 9, 2011 to December 9, 2011, the defendant announced the application for parcelling-out as the period for application for parcelling-out.

The plaintiffs did not file an application for parcelling-out within the above period.

On December 3, 2012, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant a written request for an application for adjudication on expropriation with respect to the instant real estate by delivery-certified mail, and the said mail was served to the Defendant on the following day.

On the other hand, although the above claim contains the name of the landowner and the location lot number of the real estate of this case, the address of the landowner, the land category and size of the land among the real estate of this case, the type, structure and quantity of the goods on the land, the reasons for which

E. From December 21, 2012 to December 28, 2012, from January 21, 2013 to January 28, 2013, from February 28, 2013, from February 25, 2013 to February 27, 2013, and from March 28, 2013 to the 30th of the same month, the Defendant issued a public notice of each additional application for parcelling-out by setting the application for parcelling-out as the period.

The plaintiffs did not file an application for parcelling-out within the above period.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1.