All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal between the plaintiff A and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff A.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Plaintiff A’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, this part of the ground of appeal is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles, omission of judgment, and incomplete deliberation, since the defendant did not notify the above plaintiff of the occurrence of the right of repurchase under Article 91 (1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 8665, Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter "Land Compensation Act"), although the right of repurchase under Article 91 (1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665, Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter "Land Compensation Act"), although the right of repurchase under Article 91 (1) of the Land Compensation Act was created, the defendant is obligated to compensate for damages arising from the extinction of the above right of repurchase due to the failure to notify the above plaintiff.

However, even if examining the record, Plaintiff A sought only compensation for damages incurred by the extinguishment of a repurchase right under Article 91(2) of the Land Compensation Act by notification of a repurchase right under Article 91(1) of the Land Compensation Act and selectively, until the closing of argument in the lower trial, and accordingly, Plaintiff A sought compensation for damages incurred by the extinction of a repurchase right under Article 91(1) of the Land Compensation Act. As such, the aforementioned allegation in the grounds of appeal was first asserted in the final appeal, and thus cannot be deemed legitimate, and as seen thereafter, it cannot be deemed that the repurchase right under Article 91(1) of the Land Compensation Act has been created. Therefore, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part cannot be

B. As to the second ground for appeal, the lower court is the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor.