1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number, if any, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) by reference to the whole purport of the pleadings:

F Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project partnership (hereinafter “instant partnership”) implemented housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) on a scale of 144,964 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G G, 144,964 square meters after obtaining authorization to establish a partnership around December 2008.

B. On February 22, 2016, the instant association

4. 21. Public announcement for application for parcelling-out has been made and has been made for the same year;

4. 21. The same year.

5. up to 11. The extension was extended.

C. The Plaintiffs, the owners of land, etc. in the project implementation district of this case, did not file an application for parcelling-out within the aforementioned period of application for parcelling-out, and concluded a delegation contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant delegation contract”) on each relevant day indicated in the “the date of delegation contract” in the attached Table of the Case Execution

The main contents of the instant delegation contract are as follows.

Article 2 (Scope of Delegation) of the instant delegation contract delegated by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant is the legal procedure from the negotiation stage to the final trial of administrative litigation in connection with the increase in the liquidation amount and all the legal procedure related to the claim for project cost apportionment which is anticipated to be filed by the partnership in the future.

Article 4 (Status of mandatary) The defendant shall manage the affairs entrusted to him as a good manager according to the nature of delegation based on the rights and duties prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes as attorneys-at-law.

Article 6 (Fees for Appointment of Attorneys-at-Law) With respect to the handling of the above case, the fees for appointment of attorneys shall be separately determined as follows:

(1) Matters concerning the increase of liquidation proceeds.

(a)the retainer shall not be payable;

B. The Plaintiffs’ contingent fees to be paid to the Defendant are set at the following standards:

In each process of the ruling of acceptance and objection.