1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The defendant is the operator of the project in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, D, E, approximately 11,865,000 square meters (in this case, after changing to 11,86,000 square meters), which is the project operator of the project for the development of Busan Metropolitan City F (hereinafter "the project area", and "the project area" is the project operator of the project area in this case.

The details of the plaintiffs' acquisition of land and buildings within the business zone of the case are as follows.

Plaintiff

A: On May 19, 2004, the process of the instant project, each of the Plaintiff B, each of which acquired “29.75 square meters and 36.36 square meters (hereinafter “the instant 1 building”) on the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government G large 460 square meters and “42.98 square meters” on the above ground (hereinafter “the instant 2 building”) from the 29.75 square meters and 36.36 square meters in a splate roof, each of which was acquired on December 28, 2009, the progress of the instant project is as follows.

On December 14, 2012, 2012, the public notice of residents' public inspection for the designation of Busan F (hereinafter "the public notice of this case") was made on May 16, 2013, 2012, the defendant, on September 5, 2014, on which the public notice of Busan FF designation and implementation plan approval, etc. was made on September 16, 2014, agreed with the plaintiffs regarding the first building of this case on December 16, 2013, and on December 19, 2013, the plaintiff Eul agreed on the payment of compensation, etc. to each defendant with respect to the second building of this case on December 20, 2013, and the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the building of this case on December 13, 2013.

After entering into each of the above contracts, the Plaintiffs filed an application for the selection of a person subject to relocation with the Defendant regarding the instant business, and on June 30, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the examination that they were excluded from a person subject to relocation measures on the grounds that they were not disqualified for continuous residence (Evidence).