1. The defendant's appeal is 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 cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following dismissal or addition of the reasoning, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. Part IV, 9, and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which read “the construction of a new road within an industrial complex after demolishing most of the roads according to the instant preceding projects suspended by construction,” as follows: “The construction status and surrounding conditions of the instant preceding projects suspended by construction are considered as a primary radius; the construction status and surrounding areas of the instant preceding projects were partially changed; and the construction of a new road was made by filling up the existing road according to the construction plan.”

The evidence Nos. 12 and 13 of the judgment of the first instance added “B 25,30” to “founded grounds for recognition.”

The part of the first instance judgment Nos. 3 to 5 is reversed as follows.

After the Defendant’s suspension of the preceding construction in this case on August 25, 2006, M&A shall consider construction conditions according to the preceding construction, but shall add to the judgment of the Defendant’s assertion as follows: “B, after the suspension of the preceding construction in this case on August 25, 2006, the road was partially modified and the road was created by filling up according to the complex plan, and half of the land in this case is not a road but a buffer green belt.

A. In the situation where the instant land is used for the purpose of the instant preceding project, the public official responsible for the Defendant asserting the Defendant did not have a duty to notify the occurrence of a repurchase right, even if it was included in the site for the instant subsequent project.

B. We examine the judgment, as seen earlier, the land of this case was initially acquired by the Defendant as the site for the instant preceding business and carried out the preceding construction. However, the said construction was suspended following the process of the instant subsequent business, and thereafter, the MM was incorporated into the site for the instant subsequent business and carried out construction works according to the said subsequent business, from the Defendant on May 22, 2012.