1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiffs and the defendant filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right to claim payment of deposit money (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap508779) against the adjudication compensation deposited as shown in the attached list on the ground that the plaintiffs and the defendant accepted 14 lots of land, including the 17,554mm2 in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, where the plaintiffs and the defendant were registered as joint owners in the process of the Seoul L Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party clan") around December 2006 in the course of the Seoul Urban Development Project.

On June 20, 2013, the above court sentenced the plaintiffs and the defendant to the right to claim for payment of deposit money stated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1, and sentenced that the right to claim for payment of deposit money stated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (the right to claim for payment of deposit money stated in the attached Table No. 2 (the "right to claim for payment of deposit money of this case" combined with the right to claim for payment

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the right to claim the payment of the deposit money of this case belongs to the non-party clans property and the defendant merely belong to the non-party clans property. The defendant, despite the duty to consent to the payment of the deposit money of this case, rejected the consent to the payment of deposit money of this case by asserting excessive shares in the deposit money of other compensation. This constitutes abuse of rights and thus, the plaintiffs' intent to consent in exercising the right to claim the payment of deposit money of this case against the defendant is expressed.

The facts that the plaintiffs and the defendant are quasi-conforming to the right to claim the payment of the deposit money of this case are not disputed between the parties, so the legal relations between the plaintiffs and the defendant should, in principle, be governed by the general principles of legal relations applicable to the partnership relationship, and they shall be the plaintiffs.