1. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is dismissed.

2. 90% of the total litigation cost incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified, considering the evidence submitted in the court of first instance as well as each evidence submitted in this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the supplementary determination of the defendant's assertion emphasized in the trial room or added by the defendant, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the relevant part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420

2. The supplementary decision by the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs offered KY apartment “KY apartment site development project” to each of their own “KY apartment site development project,” but KY apartment is old-age apartment constructed in 1971, and residents request the purchase and removal of KY apartment in the same way as the LY apartment rearrangement project, due to safety problems, etc., and the Defendant purchased and removed the apartment, and that the park was installed on the site, and the Defendant applied for relocation measures due to the lack of safety of KY apartment, not the purchase of KY apartment from the beginning, but the purchase by the residents by applying for relocation measures due to the lack of safety of KY apartment, and thus, it cannot be a public project stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 4

However, if the approval of an implementation plan for an urban planning facility project is publicly notified, the implementer of the urban planning facility project can expropriate and use the land, etc. necessary for the project (Articles 95 and 96 of the former National Land Planning Act). Since the project that the plaintiffs provided each apartment house room is also implemented as an urban planning facility project that is granted the right to expropriate pursuant to the former National Land Planning Act, it is at least included in the public project under Article 4 subparag. 7 of the former Land Compensation Act, i.e., the project that can expropriate or use the land, etc. under other Acts.

Therefore, the defendant's status.