1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for some different conclusions as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Of the written judgment of the court of first instance, the part 6 pages 16 to 20 are as follows.

In light of the following circumstances, the facts that the instant project was discontinued due to the designation of an urban development zone and the establishment of an urban development plan for the Defendant D's D's D's project, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments from each of the aforementioned evidence, i.e., (i) so long as the instant project for the formation of C is changed into an urban development project, it cannot be readily concluded that there is no change in the substance of the public works; (ii) the amendment of the Public Works Act to recognize the conversion of the public works to the housing construction project was made on April 5, 2010, after the closure of the instant project; and (iii) the mere fact that the Public Works Act was revised as above after the closure of the instant project and the Plaintiff's right to repurchase was revised does not restrict the exercise of the right to repurchase already occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1457, Sept. 4, 2014).

(6) As to the claim to reduce the amount of damages, the Defendant Intervenor, and Articles 19 and 19 (Report on Emigration, etc.) (1) of the Resident Registration Act, the resident or the person of unknown domicile who registered as a resident under this Act, is outside the Republic