1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant’s construction and lease of apartment units is to construct and sell three apartment units C-dong 238 households (hereinafter “the apartment units of this case”) on the land of 7,077 square meters and 11,445 square meters on the land of 11,445 square meters in a macro-si. The Defendant obtained approval of a rental housing construction plan from a macro-si market on November 12, 1999.

The defendant recruited tenant around 2002, and obtained approval for the use of the apartment of this case on March 4, 2003, and among them, the corresponding club number stated in the list of the purchase price by plaintiff 2 was leased to the plaintiffs.

B. On February 207, 2007, before five years have elapsed since the period of mandatory lease of the apartment of this case, the Defendant applied for early conversion of the apartment of this case from 226 households, which amount to about 95% of the above 238 households, and filed an application for conversion of the apartment of this case to a macro-market.

Therefore, since the procedure for selling the apartment in this case was commenced on February 21, 2007, the defendant, who is the priority right holder, argued that the plaintiff, the defendant, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the first right holder, did not consent to the early conversion of the apartment in this case and became the general purchaser. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff, the Eul's statement in subparagraph 3 alone (in light of the records in the register of the real estate register, etc. as to the corresponding household, the above plaintiffs are recognized to have been selling the apartment in the same or similar amount with other priority right holders at that time) and as examined later, as long as it is obvious that the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment by the plaintiffs has expired, the above plaintiffs' right to claim the return of unjust enrichment is not affected by conclusion, and it is not judged separately.

Between the division, the sales contract for each apartment unit listed in the corresponding subparagraph of the purchase price list by Plaintiff 2 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) was concluded, and the Plaintiffs paid the purchase price to the Defendant on each relevant date stated in the above list “registration date.”