1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant constructed six apartment units, 639 units (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and other ancillary and welfare facilities, as public construction rental housing, on the ground B of the Jeonsan-gu, Jeonju-si (hereinafter “instant project site”).

B. On February 21, 2001, the defendant announced the recruitment of occupants to the head of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and entered into a lease contract with the applicants for occupancy for five years.

C. After April 24, 2002, the Defendant, after undergoing a pre-use inspection of the apartment of this case from the head of Busan Metropolitan Government, started the lease of public rental housing and leased the apartment of this case to the above applicants for occupancy for five years.

On January 30, 2008, the Defendant commenced the procedure for conversion for sale in lots more than five years, which is the mandatory rental period for the apartment of this case, and entered into each conversion contract for sale in lots with the lessee including the Plaintiffs for the apartment of this case (hereinafter “each conversion contract for sale in lots”). On January 30, 2008, the Defendant received all balance of the sale in lots from the Plaintiffs according to each conversion contract for sale in lots.

E. The area per household of the apartment of this case is the same as 122.122m2m2.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant received an amount exceeding the pre-sale conversion price under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, including the Rental Housing Act, upon entering into each of the instant sales contracts. Of these, the part that exceeded the legitimate pre-sale conversion price is invalid, and the Defendant is obligated to return the amount received to the Plaintiffs as unjust enrichment.

B. On the summary of the Defendant’s assertion, in calculating the pre-sale conversion price, the “construction cost” refers to the standard construction cost rather than the actual input construction cost. Therefore, each sales contract of this case.