A. As to KRW 32,255,182 among Plaintiff A and KRW 30,00,000 among them, from October 23, 2010 to May 2, 2019.

A. In carrying out the C project (hereinafter “instant project”), the Defendant expropriated the Plaintiff’s land to use the land owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) as the project site for underground water pipelines, and acquired the Plaintiff’s land by consultation.

The detailed details are as follows:

The acquisition date of land owned by the owner / the contract amount is KRW 102 square meters per 102 square meters per d, May 19, 2000 and KRW 62 square meters per 5,759,800,000 per d, Ansan-si, Plaintiff A, for the period of May 19, 200.

B. On June 10, 2005, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, including each of the instant land, designated and publicly announced the 585,000 square meters of the Gu FF as a G intended area (public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation) during the Ansan-si period, including the instant land. On January 2, 2007, the Minister changed the designation of the G planned area and made a public notice of the approval for the implementation plan (public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation) to the Korea National Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Korea National Housing Corporation”) at the same time, as the implementer of the G planned area (hereinafter “instant housing site development project”).

C. When each of the lands of this case was incorporated into the site for the housing site development project of this case and it was impossible to use the irrigation channel installed on each of the lands of this case, on June 30, 2009, the Defendant entered into a transfer agreement with the Non-Party Corporation to install the irrigation channel replacing the above irrigation channel in another place, and completed the flow of the irrigation channel on October 23, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that each land of this case is no longer necessary for the business of this case within 10 years from the date of acquisition by agreement or the date of expropriation. The defendant did not notify the plaintiffs of the occurrence of the right of repurchase, thereby causing damages to the plaintiffs who lose the right of repurchase.