1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff A and B, which is equivalent to the next order of payment, shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2005, the Defendant recruited the lessee by means of an occupant recruitment announcement with the following contents, with respect to the public rental housing with the aggregate of 9.9329 square meters and 396 square meters and 576 square meters and households with 10 households with 59.9329 square meters and 84.2382 square meters and 576 square meters of public rental housing, which is the public rental housing that received the National Housing Fund from the Si of Gunsan, from the Si of Gunsan, for the public rental housing (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”, and if the part of exclusive ownership

Conversion for sale in lots (lease period): Standards for calculating conversion for sale in lots (sale) at the expiration of five years or one half of the mandatory period under Article 9 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (after two years and six months from the lease commencement date): pursuant to Articles 9 (5) and 13 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act and Article 3-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

B. From July 2006, the Plaintiffs (excluding Plaintiff A and B), Nonparty I, and J concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on a five-year lease term for each of the households indicated on the “subject matter” column of the calculation of the attached pre-sale conversion price among the instant apartment units (I, No. 201, No. 206, No. 206, and J, No. 207, No. 1205).

On October 26, 2011, the Defendant obtained approval for conversion of rental housing from the military market for sale in lots after the expiration of the mandatory rental period. The approval for conversion of the sale in lots was based on the construction cost calculated by applying the standard construction cost, and the Defendant determined the conversion price for sale in lots as stated in the “actual conversion price” column of the calculation of the pre-sale conversion price according to the above approval for conversion of sale in lots.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs (excluding Plaintiff A and B), I, and J concluded that each household on the “subject matter” column for the calculation of the attached pre-sale conversion price between the Defendant and the Defendant (I No. 201, 206, 207, 1205, 207, 1205) should be sold at each amount indicated on the “actual pre-sale conversion price” column.