1. The plaintiffs' housing site development project zone for the defendant Kimpo-si, V, W, X Japan is located within the housing site development project zone.

1. Basic facts

A. The Korea Land Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant, regardless of whether before or after the merger, was merged with the Defendant established on October 1, 2009; hereinafter “instant project”) is an implementer of the “Y Housing Site Development Project” (hereinafter “the instant project”), which is a project district for Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant project district”). After obtaining approval for the alteration of the housing site development plan and implementation plan on October 29, 2007, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs obtained approval for the alteration of the development plan and implementation plan (threej) from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 2009.

B. The Defendant, as a part of the relocation measures for the residents who lost their residential base due to the expropriation of their own housing or land as a result of the incorporation of housing into the instant project district, intended to specially sell the unsettled housing site in the project district to be developed by the implementation of the instant project to those selected as a person subject to the relocation measures.

C. As residents of the project district of this case, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “each sales contract of this case”) with the amount indicated as “the total purchase price under the No.S. sales contract” as the sale price for each housing site indicated as the attached Table 1 calculation sheet as residents of the project district of this case, or succeeded to the rights and obligations under the sales contract from the buyer prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case.

The Plaintiffs paid to the Defendant the amount indicated in the corresponding column of “amount paid by each individual” as the sales price according to each sales contract of this case by the respective date indicated in the corresponding column of attached Table 1.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number), Eul evidence 1-1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The reasonable sale price to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant according to each of the sales contracts in this case is prior to the amendment by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007.