1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant C Urban Development Project Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Association”) was authorized to establish an association on September 28, 2009 after the request for designation of an urban development project zone around April 2007.

In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff A was the owner of the building D’s ground (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Plaintiff B was the occupant who used the said building as a child care center on or around March 2011, and entered into an agreement on the compensation, removal, and delivery of the instant building with the Defendant Union on or around March 23, 2011. The Plaintiff was certified as the law firm Jeong, etc. on or around the 23th day of the same month as the law firm Jeong, etc.

As of March 201, the main contents thereof determined the amount of compensation by appraising the building of this case as of March 201, and at the same time, the Defendant Union received compensation from the Plaintiffs within one year from the date of notification of the receipt of compensation from the Defendant Union.

No. 1-1 of A. The Defendant Union obtained authorization for an urban development zone project on March 29, 2012, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Union drafted a new agreement on the compensation, removal, delivery, etc. of the instant building on May 22, 2012, and obtained certification as prescribed by Ordinance No. 1266 of the Ministry of Samsung, including Samsung, on the same day.

The main contents of the building of this case consented to the management of the medical care center by the Plaintiffs and agreed to cooperate in the administrative procedures necessary therefor. The average price of the appraised value of the building of this case as of March 3, 2011 is determined as compensation, and the time of payment, damages for delay, etc. was determined.

On April 30, 2015, the defendant union submitted a written objection to the defendant union on May 11, 2015.

A. 2. 【Evidence No. 2. 【No. 2. 【No. 1’s ground for recognition, and the purport of Gap’s evidence No. 1-1, 2, 2-2, and 4-1 as to the grounds for a claim as a whole. The plaintiffs’ assertion and the defendant’s association made up between the plaintiffs and the defendant’ association on May 22, 2012.