1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Korea National Housing Corporation (the Defendant was merged with the Defendant, a newly established corporation, along with the Korea Land Corporation on October 1, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) obtained approval from the housing construction project plan to construct public rental apartment (other than public rental housing 1,618 and general rental housing 162; hereinafter the same shall apply) on December 1, 1997, since the public rental apartment (other than public rental housing 1,618) was also located in the north-gu, Busan, and completed the first announcement on September 30, 199 after commencing the construction of the apartment of this case on April 15, 199, and completed the construction on August 4, 201.

B. From June 2001, the Defendant concluded each lease contract with the occupants of the instant apartment from around 5, 2001 on each of the instant apartment units, and since the period of lease obligation elapsed 5 years, the period of sale for sale has arrived, the Defendant calculated each of the money stated in the column for the amount of sale for sale in lots for each of the instant apartment units from November 1, 2006 to December 2006 as the occupants and the households of the instant apartment units as to each of the instant apartment units as the sale price for each of the instant apartment units (hereinafter “each of the instant sales contracts”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 18 evidence (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, 2, 4, 20 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the defendant should calculate the pre-sale conversion price of the apartment of this case in accordance with the standards prescribed by the relevant laws, such as the former Rental Housing Act, and received each payment from the plaintiffs after determining the excess price. Thus, the part of each of the sales contracts of this case that exceeds the legitimate pre-sale conversion price

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to refund each money as stated in the attached Form 2 “claim Amount” and its delay damages paid to the plaintiffs in excess of the legitimate pre-sale conversion price as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

(a) Gu.