1. The plaintiff C, F, J, andO's action shall be dismissed.

2. All of the plaintiffs' claims except the plaintiffs C, F, J, andO.

1. We examine whether the plaintiffs C, F, J, andO's lawsuits are legitimate or not.

As the cause of the claim of this case, the above plaintiffs calculated the sale price on the sales contract without deducting the basic living facilities installation cost in supplying housing sites to a person subject to relocation measures pursuant to Article 78 (4) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter the "former Land Compensation Act") as the project implementer of this case. The part of the sales contract which included the basic living facilities installation cost in the sale price is invalid because it violates the above provision, which is mandatory law, and the above plaintiffs' obligation to pay the sale price pursuant to the sales contract against the defendant does not exceed the balance after deducting the sale price already paid from the legitimate sale price. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the contract was cancelled on the ground that the above plaintiffs did not pay the sale price pursuant to the sales contract as seen below.

Unless there are special circumstances, the subject of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is the current rights or legal relations, and the existence of past rights or legal relations is not recognized. Thus, the lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence of a purchase price or obligation, which is premised on the existence of a sales contract, shall be deemed as having no interest in confirmation as to past rights or legal relations when the sales contract is cancelled.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, 10, 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 15, 27 through 30, the above plaintiffs were merged with the defendant established on Oct. 1, 2009; hereinafter "the defendant, regardless of whether before or after the merger"), each Kimpo-si entered in the following table from the Korea Land Corporation (hereinafter "the defendant").