1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap's evidence 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), and purport of the whole pleadings);

A. D on January 20, 1969, acquired ownership of 201 square meters in Suwon-si E, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On June 10, 2002, the Suwon City announced the authorization of the implementation plan for the project of installing the Suwon Urban Planning Facility (six routes, such as F, etc.) of the day of the instant land, etc. (hereinafter “the instant first project”). On October 17, 2002, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land due to consultation on October 11, 2002 for the instant first project on October 17, 2002.

Since then, the road was constructed on the instant land and provided to the general public for use.

C. On December 26, 2006, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do publicly announced the decision to abolish the roads installed on the instant land as a plan for the installation of urban planning facilities, designating all members of the day, including Suwon-si G land, including the instant land, as the H residential environment improvement project zone in Suwon-si.

Gyeonggi-do Public Notice J

D. According to the above notification, on September 23, 2008, the Suwon City announced the project implementation authorization for the H residential environment improvement project (hereinafter “instant second project”). On November 27, 2008, the Suwon City announced the designation of the project implementer and the implementation plan for the said project.

Notice of Suwon-si M

E. Meanwhile, D died on October 30, 2010, and his spouse K died on February 9, 201, and the Plaintiffs, who were children, jointly succeeded to D and K’s properties.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the land of this case is no longer necessary due to the discontinuation of the project of this case on November 27, 2008, which was within 10 years from the date of acquisition of the land of this case, since the land of this case was discontinued, the plaintiffs D or their inheritors are entitled to exercise the right of repurchase under Article 91 (1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter "Land Compensation Act"), and the defendant is the defendant.