1. The plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.

2. Each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be determined by the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an association established by the former Land Readjustment Project Act (repealed by Act No. 6252, Jul. 1, 2000; hereinafter the same shall apply). The Defendant was the implementer of the land readjustment project in which Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government G members are the implementation district (hereinafter “instant project”). The Defendant obtained business authorization from Incheon Metropolitan City on October 4, 201, and publicly announced land substitution disposition regarding the instant project on October 24, 201.

B. Each land indicated in the Plaintiffs’ “previous land” column in the separate sheet No. 1 list (hereinafter “instant land before the instant land substitution”) was replaced by each land indicated in the “land for confirmation of land substitution” column in the separate sheet No. 1 list according to the said land substitution disposition (hereinafter “land after the instant land substitution”). Accordingly, the land substitution liquidation amount was imposed.

C. On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the registration of the instant land following the instant replotting disposition to the competent registry office.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant application”), . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant, upon the submission of the instant reply, refused to entrust the registration to the Plaintiffs on July 29, 2015, and sought revocation of the disposition of refusal to entrust the registration to the Plaintiffs on July 29, 2015. However, the instant reply is merely to the purport that, when the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of illegality of the request for the registration of substitute substitution, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for confirmation of illegality of the request for the registration of substitute substitution, and that, when the Plaintiffs were liable to pay the liquidation money for substitute substitution, the Plaintiffs did not fully pay the liquidation money for substitute, and therefore, the Defendant’s submission to the purport that “the request of this case