1. The administrative city construction project district against the defendant by the plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeeding intervenors.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged according to the overall purport of Gap evidence of 1 to 9 and Eul evidence of 1 to 8 (including each number), and the whole purport of oral argument.

On May 24, 2005, the development project for the multifunctional administrative city was designated as the development project district for the multifunctional administrative city (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project district”). The Defendant designated as the project implementer for the instant project district as follows:

Public announcement of the designation of planned construction areas and surrounding areas on May 24, 2005 for public inspection of residents on March 24, 2005 of the Special Act on the Construction of Multifunctional Administrative City on March 18, 2005 (Public Notice No. 2005-123 of the Construction Agency’s Public Notice No. 2005-123 of the Construction Agency) on July 31, 2006 on November 29, 2006 (Public Notice No. 2006-21 of the Construction Agency’s Public Notice No. 2006-21 of the Construction Agency’s Public Notice) on December 21, 2006 on June 28, 2007 (Public Notice No. 2007-2 of the Construction Agency’s Public Notice No. 2007-3) on July 4, 2007.

B. The Defendant entered into a contract for sale in lots, as the instant project is incorporated into the instant project zone, intended to specially sell migrants’ housing sites to be developed within the instant project zone, as relocation measures for those who lose their base of living due to expropriation of their owned housing or land, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant concluded a sales contract for the pre-settled housing site (hereinafter "each sales contract of this case"), and the plaintiffs entered into a sales contract directly with the defendant or succeed to rights and obligations from the persons who entered into the sales contract of this case, and they are the defendants' remaining obligations and unjust gains in accordance with the respective sales contract of this case.