1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below.

2. In addition, the defendant asserts that the land of this case was incorporated into the site of the industrial complex of this case (AA general industrial complex) is converted to another public project pursuant to Article 91(6) of the former Land Compensation Act, so the plaintiffs' repurchase right does not occur.

On December 24, 2007, the Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor approved the alteration and implementation plan of the industrial complex development project of this case on December 24, 2007, and the plaintiffs acquired the right of repurchase. The industrial complex development project of this case does not constitute another public project for which conversion of public works under Articles 91(6) and 4 subparag. 1 through 4 of the former Land Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007 (amended by April 18, 2008) was enforced at the time when the plaintiffs' right of repurchase was created.

Moreover, as the former Land Compensation Act was amended by Act No. 12471 on March 18, 2014, the project for the creation of an industrial complex was added to other public works permitted to convert the public works under Article 91(6) and Article 4(5). However, even if the Act was amended after the Plaintiffs’ repurchase right occurred, it cannot be deemed that the exercise of the Plaintiffs’ repurchase right already occurred is restricted.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1457, Sept. 4, 2014). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is dismissed as all of the grounds are groundless.