The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

The grounds for appeal by the defendant which cited the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the court of first instance are examined, the fact finding and judgment of the court of

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial of the court, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this section is the same as that of the first instance judgment). 2. Additional parts

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the instant land is assigned to the NN line road, which is a public site for the road project for the purpose of public interest continuously as the site for urban planning facilities according to the instant road project. Since it was ultimately incorporated into P road, which is an urban planning facility, on November 28, 2013, the instant land was ultimately incorporated into the P road, which is an urban planning facility, the need for public works is not extinguished, and thus, the right of repurchase under Article 91(1)

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff acquired a repurchase right on the land of this case around July 12, 2007, which is the date of approval and public notice of the business plan of the housing construction project of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① Of the land acquired through consultation on June 30, 2003 for the instant road project, the land of this case, among the land acquired through consultation on June 30, 2003, was transferred to land for the instant housing construction project, not for the instant road project, due to the approval and publication of the instant housing construction project plan on July 12, 2007, within ten years from the date of acquisition through consultation, and became unnecessary for the instant road project.

(2) The term "relevant project" under Article 91 (1) of the former Land Compensation Act refers to a specific public project that serves as the objective of expropriation or acquisition through consultation and that is the former Land Compensation Act.