1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, except for additional determination as to the defendant's assertion as to this case, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is identical to that of the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant asserts that the incorporation of each of the instant lands into the site of the instant project constitutes conversion of each of the instant lands into another public project pursuant to Article 91(6) of the Land Compensation Act, and thus, the plaintiffs' repurchase right does not occur.

B. However, the project of this case does not fall under other public works [the projects concerning the construction of housing or the creation of housing sites for lease or transfer] permitted to convert public works under Article 91(6) of the former Land Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 12471, Mar. 18, 2014) that was enforced at the time of the plaintiffs' repurchase right (the date of approval of the project of this case, which was the date of the project of this case) and does not fall under subparagraphs 1 through 5 (the project for the construction of housing or the creation of housing sites for lease or transfer) of Article 4 of the former Land Compensation Act, and it is not permissible to limit the exercise of the plaintiffs' repurchase right by applying the amended Act retroactively after the plaintiffs' repurchase right occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1457, Sept. 4, 2014).

3. The plaintiffs' claim should be accepted on the grounds of the reasons.

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in conclusion as above.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.