1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the implementer of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Eunpyeong-gu Urban Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”) in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Youngdong-dong Urban Development Project, and the Plaintiffs are the residents in the said project district.

B. On January 10, 2008, the Defendant decided to specially supply apartment buildings to be developed within the project district of this case as part of the relocation measures for residents who lose their base of living due to the implementation of the project of this case. Accordingly, the attached calculation sheet “(1)” is as indicated in the attached Table “I” with each relevant Plaintiff on the corresponding day indicated in the attached Table “I” column of the same Table with respect to each of the relevant apartment buildings indicated in the “object of Sale” column of the same Table as indicated on the corresponding day. The Defendant concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with each corresponding amount indicated in the “I” column of the same Table, and received subsequent payment from

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 21, 30, 31, 45 through 49 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the sales contract of this case claimed by the plaintiffs, the costs of the basic living facilities under Article 78 (4) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007) were included in the sale price so that the plaintiffs would be paid the costs of the basic living facilities to the defendant who is the project operator. The part of the sales contract of this case, which included the cost of the basic living facilities in the sale price, is invalid in violation of the above provision, which is a mandatory law, and thus, the defendant is obligated to return each of the corresponding amounts as stated in the "claim No. 10

3. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the judgment of the plaintiff A, B, and C as to the claims of the plaintiff A, Eul, and Eul, and evidence Nos. 4, 21, and 30, the plaintiff A shall be subject to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, and the plaintiff B shall be subject to the plaintiff E on Mar. 5, 2009, and the plaintiff F and G on Jan. 28, 2011.