Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Shinsung, Attorney Han Sung-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seosung-si (Law Firm Lee & Lee LLC, Attorneys Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 15, 2015

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gahap60692 Decided November 27, 2014

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed.

Defendant:

(1) The Plaintiff 1 shall pay 14,963,818 won and the interest thereon at a rate of 5% per annum from November 23, 2009 to August 13, 2015 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

(2) The Plaintiff 2 paid 44,794,152 won and 5% interest per annum from November 22, 2009 to August 13, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 2/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant.

Purport of claim

Defendant:

(1) From November 23, 2009 to September 3, 2014, Plaintiff 1 paid 43,026,000 won with 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of delivery of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim as of September 3, 2014.

(2) From November 22, 2009 to September 3, 2014, Plaintiff 2 paid 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of delivery of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of September 3, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the arguments in each of Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-6, Gap evidence 9-1 to 4.

[1]

On May 10, 1976, Plaintiff 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of the Dong-si ( Address 1 omitted).

On February 14, 1975, Plaintiff 2 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of the Dong-si ( Address 2 omitted).

○ The Defendant became an executor of the road establishment and packaging project (hereinafter referred to as the “road project of this case”) in 199-158 of the 199-19-158 notice of the Sungsung-gun in 199.

○ The instant road project is an urban planning project, which is a project for identifying and packaging a four-lane wide range of 20 meters on the section from 199 to 3.34 km in the area from 3.34 km in Sungsung City ( Address 3 omitted) to 3.34 km.

○ In accordance with the Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Damages, the Defendant acquired 284 square meters in consultation from Plaintiff 1 on November 15, 1999 in order to acquire the site for the instant road project, and acquired 585 square meters in consultation from Plaintiff 2 on the same day among the land above ( Address 1 omitted).

○ The Defendant paid KRW 51,830,000 to Plaintiff 1 due to the above negotiations, and paid KRW 90,675,000 to Plaintiff 2.

The above 284m2, which the Defendant acquired through consultation with the Plaintiff 1, is divided into 284m2, Dong-si ( Address 5 omitted), Dong-si ( Address 5 omitted), 284m2, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 23, 199.

The above 585 square meters, which the Defendant acquired through consultation from Plaintiff 2, is divided into 585 square meters ( Address 6 omitted) prior to the dong-si ( Address 6 omitted) in Sungsung-si, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on November 22, 1999 on the ground of the acquisition of public land by consultation.

[2]

The road project of this case was scheduled to be executed until December 30, 2004, and the Defendant acquired 64% of the site of the road project of this case including (No. 5 omitted) land and (No. 6 omitted) land (hereinafter “each land of this case”) from February 28, 2001.

around that time, most of the site of the road project in this case was anticipated to be designated as a planned site for housing site development, and the Defendant suspended the acquisition of the site of the road project in this case and suspended the construction work.

On April 25, 2001, the Minister of Construction and Transportation publicly announced the designation of a prearranged area and the approval of a development plan under Article 2001-326 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation publicly notified on December 14, 2001, with respect to the housing site development project in the Jinsungdong District under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant housing site development project”).

○ Korea Land Corporation became a developer of the instant housing site development project, and the development period was publicly announced by December 31, 2007.

○ The area subject to the said housing site development was included in the said area, each of the instant land was included in the said area, which is 9,042,48 square meters in Thai-do and Taesung-si, Taedong-si, Taesung-si, Taesung-si.

○, on November 2002, the Defendant transferred each of the lands of this case, which the Defendant acquired through consultation from the Plaintiffs for the instant road project, to the Korea Land Corporation, which is the executor of the instant housing site development project.

On December 26, 2002, the Minister of Construction and Transportation publicly announced the alteration designation of the planned housing site development area, the alteration approval of the development plan, and the approval of the implementation plan under Article 2002-298 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation.

○ The land of this case was included in the said housing site development district, and 2.89 km among the road project section of this case 3.34 km, and 87% of the site of this case was included in the said district.

On March 5, 2003, the Korea Land Corporation started the construction of the housing site development project of this case, and each land of this case was used as a site for multi-unit housing in the housing site development project of this case.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

On December 26, 2002, the approval of the implementation plan for the housing site development project of this case was publicly notified, and the road project of this case was discontinued, and thus, the plaintiffs' repurchase rights were created with respect to each of the instant land. The defendant did not notify the plaintiffs of the occurrence of the above repurchase rights, and the plaintiffs did not lose the above repurchase rights on November 23, 2009 and November 22, 2009 when 10 years have elapsed since the date of acquisition of each of the instant land.

Therefore, at the time of loss of the above right of repurchase, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for the amount equivalent to the appraised value of each land of this case less the compensation received by the plaintiffs previously by the road business of this case.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of a redemptive right;

1) According to the above facts, the defendant acquired each of the instant land from the plaintiffs on November 15, 1999 in accordance with the Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss in order to acquire the site as the implementer of the instant road project.

As the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor was repealed on January 1, 2003, the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works") was enforced from the same day, and Article 3 of the Addenda of this Act provides that "any disposition, procedure, and other acts conducted under the previous Act on the Acquisition of Land Expropriation Act and the Act on the Compensation for

Article 91 (1) of the Public Works Act provides that where all or part of the acquired land becomes unnecessary due to the discontinuation or alteration of the relevant project or for other reasons within 10 years from the date of acquisition through consultation, the landowner at the time of the acquisition date or his/her general successor shall be entitled to repurchase the land by paying to the project operator the amount equivalent to the compensation paid for the relevant land, within one year from the date all or part of the relevant land becomes unnecessary, or within 10 years from the date of acquisition.

2) The redemptive right under Article 91(1) of the Public Works Act may be exercised “where all or part of the acquired land becomes unnecessary due to the discontinuation or alteration of the project in question or any other cause.” The term “project in question” refers to a specific public project which is the object of acquiring or expropriation of the land, and the term “where the acquired land becomes unnecessary” means a case where it is no longer necessary to be used for the project due to the discontinuation or alteration of a specific public project which is the object of acquiring the land, or any other cause. Whether the acquired land is unnecessary or not shall be determined objectively and reasonably in light of all the circumstances, including the purpose and contents of the relevant public project, the details and scope of the acquisition of the land, the relationship with the relevant land and its use, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12043, 12050 Decided May 13, 2010).

3) In the foregoing circumstances, the following facts are examined.

The road project in this case is an urban planning project that is the defendant, and the operator is the defendant, and the project is confirmed and packaged 20 meters wide in the section from 3.34 km to 3.34 km from e.g., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., e.,

Around February 28, 2001, when the Defendant acquired 64% of the site for the road project of this case including each of the instant land, most of the site for the road project of this case was anticipated to be designated as the housing site development area. The Defendant suspended the additional acquisition of the site for the road project of this case and suspended the construction work.

In the meantime, the instant housing site development project is the Korea Land Corporation, and the project operator develops housing sites with the degree of 9,00,000 square meters in Taedong-si, Taedong-si, Taesung-si, Taesung-si, Seosung-si, and the development period was publicly announced until December 31, 2007.

In relation to the instant housing site development project, the designation, alteration designation, and approval of the development plan of the housing site development area was publicly announced on April 25, 2001 and December 14, 2001, and each of the instant land was included in the designated housing site development area.

(1) Around November 2002, the Defendant transferred each of the instant land acquired through consultation from the Plaintiffs for the instant road project to the Korea Land Corporation, which is the implementer of the instant housing site development project. In addition, the said housing site development zone included 2.89 km in the road project section of this case, and 87% of the site for the instant road project was included in the said housing site development zone.

In relation to the housing site development project of this case, on December 26, 2002, the designation of the planned area for housing site development, the modification of the development plan, and the approval of the implementation plan were announced. The Korea Land Corporation started the construction of the housing site development project of this case around March 5, 2003, and each land of this case was used as site for the housing site development project of this case

4) In light of the purpose and contents of the instant road project as above, the details and scope of the acquisition of each of the instant land, and the relationship between each of the instant land and the instant road project and its use, etc., the approval of the development plan and the implementation plan for the instant housing site development project on December 26, 2002 is publicly notified. Accordingly, each of the instant land no longer needs to be used for the instant road project due to the discontinuation or alteration of the instant road project, which was the purpose of acquiring each of the instant land, and other reasons

Therefore, on December 26, 2002, the plaintiffs' right to repurchase on each of the instant land was established.

(b) Notice of repurchase right and compensation for damages;

1) Article 92(1) of the Public Works Act provides that “When there has occurred any land to be repurchased pursuant to the provisions of Article 91(1), the project operator shall notify the repurchase right holder without delay. However, if the project operator is unable to identify the repurchase right holder without any negligence, the project operator shall make a public announcement thereof, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.”

2) The purport of the provision that a project operator shall notify or publicly announce the original owner, etc. of the land subject to repurchase without delay is to ensure the effectiveness of the exercise of the right of repurchase, which is naturally recognized by law, by first informing the original owner of such land and demanding him/her to notify him/her of whether it would be redeemed, in light of the legislative purpose of the provision regarding the right of repurchase, such as the request for at least the public burden, the necessity to protect the original owner who has lost ownership in a non-voluntary manner, and the principle of equity. Therefore, the above provision is not mere declaration, but rather a legal obligation of the project operator. Therefore, even if the project operator is obligated to give notice or public notice under each of the above provisions despite the duty of giving notice or public notice, if the original owner, etc. fails to give notice or public notice to the original owner, etc. and thereby causes loss to the repurchase itself due to the exercise of the right of repurchase recognized by law, it constitutes a tort against the original owner, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da48564, Nov. 14, 2000).

3) The defendant asserts that the Korea Land Corporation, the executor of the housing site development project of this case, bears the obligation to notify the plaintiffs of the occurrence of the repurchase right, and the defendant, the executor of the road project of this case, does not bear the obligation to notify.

According to the above, Article 91(1) of the Public Works Act provides that a project operator may repurchase land by paying an amount equivalent to compensation to the project operator, and Article 92(1) of the same Act provides that a project operator shall notify a repurchase right holder without delay when there is any land to be repurchased. However, the Defendant, who is the project operator of the road project of this case, acquired each of the instant land from the Plaintiffs, but did not need to use each of the instant land for the road project of this case due to the discontinuation or alteration of the road project of this case or other reasons, thereby causing the Plaintiffs

Thus, the defendant, who is the implementer of the road project of this case, bears the duty to notify the plaintiffs of the occurrence of the right of repurchase, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4) As seen earlier, on December 26, 2002, the Plaintiffs’ repurchase rights were created with respect to each of the instant land. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the occurrence of such repurchase rights or publicly notified the occurrence of such repurchase rights.

The exercise period of the above repurchase right is up to November 15, 2009, when the defendant acquired each of the lands of this case by agreement from the plaintiffs, from November 15, 1999 to November 15, 2009. There is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiffs did not exercise the repurchase right within the above period, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs did not exercise the repurchase right knowing the occurrence of the above repurchase right.

5) Meanwhile, according to the facts as seen earlier, after the Defendant acquired each of the instant lands from the Plaintiffs through consultation, on November 2002, each of the instant lands was transferred without compensation to the Korea Land Corporation, which is the implementer of the instant housing site development project, and on December 26, 2002, the approval of the development plan and implementation plan of the instant housing site development project was publicly notified, and the Plaintiffs’ repurchase rights were created.

However, according to the above facts, the plaintiffs' repurchase rights can be asserted against the third party pursuant to Article 91 (5) of the Public Works Act, since the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 23, 1999 and November 22, 1999 with respect to each land of this case after the defendant acquired each land of this case through consultation from the plaintiffs.

In addition, even if the land subject to repurchase has been expropriated, the obligation to transfer ownership is not extinguished, but only the obligation to transfer ownership is impossible, and the repurchase right holder can file a claim against the project operator on the premise that the repurchase right is established (Supreme Court Decision 99Du3416 delivered on November 28, 200).

Therefore, even if the defendant transferred each of the lands of this case to the Korea Land Corporation and implemented the housing site development project, such reasons alone do not lose the plaintiffs' right of repurchase, and the plaintiffs' right of repurchase shall continue to exist until the expiration of the period of exercise.

6) Thus, since the defendant did not notify or publicly announce each of the lands of this case to the plaintiffs, and caused the plaintiffs to lose the right of repurchase on November 15, 2009 due to the Do for exercising the right of repurchase on November 15, 2009, it shall be deemed that the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the loss of the right of repurchase.

(c) Damages incurred by loss of the redemptive right;

1) The amount of damages due to the loss of the right of repurchase shall be determined by the amount obtained by deducting the repurchase price to be returned when the repurchase right holder exercised the repurchase right from the market price of the object at the time of loss of the right of repurchase. Thus, in a case where the appraisal value of the object of repurchase at the time of loss of the right of repurchase is less than or equal to the amount obtained by multiplying the compensation received by the repurchase right holder, the appraisal value of neighboring land unrelated to the relevant project until the time of loss of the right of repurchase, the said appraisal value shall be calculated by deducting the said compensation from the appraisal value at the time of loss of the right of repurchase. However, if the appraisal value at the time of loss of the right of repurchase exceeds △△△△, the amount obtained by deducting the amount obtained by multiplying the said compensation by the land price increase rate (the land price increase - the land price increase / the original land price increase) of neighboring similar land unrelated to the relevant project at the time of repurchase [the amount of appraisal - (the compensation - compensation 】 compensation 】 the amount obtained by multiplying the land price increase rate at the time of neighboring land).

2) As above, determining the amount of damages due to the loss of the redemptive right as the amount obtained by deducting the repurchase price to be returned when the repurchase right holder exercised the redemptive right from the market price of the object at the time of loss of the redemptive right, is the method of assessing the value of the repurchase right based on the land itself on the premise that the repurchase right holder can recover the land itself by exercising the redemptive right until the expiration of the exercise

On the other hand, the exercise of the right to expropriate land, etc. which limits the people's property rights, shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the promotion of public welfare. Thus, if the whole or part of the land acquired for the public works is abolished or changed due to the change of circumstances, etc., and the whole or part of the land acquired for the public works becomes unnecessary due to the discontinuation or change of the whole or part of the specific public works, it shall be the principle that the snowian once returned to the repurchase right holder who exercises the right to repurchase even if it is necessary for the new public works, and again acquires through consultation or expropriates the land (Supreme Court Decision 91Da29927 delivered on April 28, 1992).

3) As to each of the instant lands as seen earlier, the circumstances are as follows.

In order to acquire the site as the implementer of the road project in this case, the Defendant acquired each land in this case from the Plaintiffs on November 15, 1999, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 23, 199 and November 22, 199 with respect to each land in this case.

In relation to the instant housing site development project under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act on April 25, 2001, the designation of the planned housing site development area was publicly announced on December 14, 2001.

In addition, each land of this case was included in the above housing site development area, and the defendant transferred each land of this case to the Korea Land Corporation, which is the executor of the housing site development project of this case, on November 2002.

In relation to the instant housing site development project on December 26, 2002, the designation of the planned housing site development area, the approval of the modification of the development plan, and the approval of the implementation plan were publicly announced. Accordingly, on December 26, 2002, the Plaintiffs’ repurchase right was created regarding each of the instant land.

4) According to the above circumstances, since the plaintiffs' repurchase rights were created on December 26, 2002 with respect to each of the lands of this case acquired through consultation by the defendant for the road project of this case, the defendant once returned each of the lands of this case to the plaintiffs who exercise repurchase rights, and in principle, the Korea Land Corporation, who is the executor of the project, re-acquisitions or expropriates each of the lands of this case from the plaintiffs for the housing site development project of this case for which the approval of the development plan was publicly notified after the defendant

In such a case, the plaintiffs paid the redemption price of the previous compensation amount, etc. paid to the defendant under the road project of this case, and recovered each land of this case itself, but the Korea Land Corporation, the implementer of the housing site development project of this case, is in a position to receive the compensation in the process of re-acquisition or expropriation of each land of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs were not able to recover each land of this case by exercising the repurchase right until the expiration of the exercise period

Therefore, the ultimate purpose of the right of repurchase held by the plaintiffs is not the land itself of this case, but the Korea Land Corporation, which is the implementer of the housing site development project of this case, shall be deemed compensation that can be paid to the plaintiffs in the course of re-acquisition or expropriation of each land of this case. Therefore, the value of the right of repurchase held by the plaintiffs cannot be assessed based on each land of this case itself, and the value of the right of repurchase should be assessed based on the compensation that the plaintiffs can receive in the course of re-acquisition or expropriation of each land

5) According to the above, since the Defendant did not notify or publicly notify the Plaintiffs of the occurrence of the right of repurchase on each of the instant land, and caused the Plaintiffs to lose the right of repurchase itself due to the lapse of the period for exercising the right of repurchase on November 15, 2009, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages caused by the loss of the right of repurchase.

Therefore, in calculating the amount of damages for the loss of the Plaintiffs’ repurchase right, the method of assessing the value of the said repurchase right based on each of the instant land itself on the premise that the Plaintiff could recover each of the instant land itself by exercising the repurchase right until the expiration of the exercise period of the repurchase right, i.e., the method of determining the amount obtained by deducting the repurchase price to be returned when the repurchase right holder exercised the repurchase right from the market price of the object at the time of loss of the repurchase right, and the Korea Land Corporation shall follow the method of assessing the value of the repurchase right based on the compensation that the Plaintiffs would have received in the course of re-acquisition through consultation or expropriation.

D. Damages for the plaintiffs

1) According to the above facts, on April 25, 2001, the designation of the housing site development area of this case was announced publicly on December 14, 2001, the designation of the housing site development area of this case was announced publicly on April 25, 200, and the designation and approval of the development plan was announced publicly on December 14, 2001, each of the land of this case was included in the above housing site development area, and the defendant transferred each of the land of this case to the Korea Land Corporation, a developer of the housing site development project of this case, free of charge around November 2002, and on December 26, 2002, the designation of the above planned area was announced publicly on December 26, 2002, and the alteration of the development plan and the approval of the implementation plan were announced publicly

In addition, according to the above, the plaintiffs paid the redemption price, such as the amount equivalent to the previous compensation amount, which was paid pursuant to the road project of this case, to the defendant, and recovered each of the lands of this case itself, but the Korea Land Corporation, which is the executor of the housing site development project of this case, was in the position to receive the compensation in the process

2) If so, on November 2002, the defendant had already transferred each of the lands of this case to the Korea Land Corporation, the executor of the housing site development project of this case, and the plaintiffs had a status of being able to receive compensation under the housing site development project of this case on or around December 31, 2002, based on a repurchase right against a third party, as seen earlier.

According to the relevant provisions of the Public Works Act, the above compensation shall be calculated as the modified appraised amount at the time of December 31, 2002 by applying the land price as of January 1, 2001 nearest the above public notice date among the officially announced land price before December 14, 201, for which the approval of the development plan for the housing site development project of this case was publicly announced.

According to the aforementioned facts and the Nonparty’s appraisal result, as to each of the instant lands, the appraisal amount, the appraisal rate revised at the time of December 31, 2002, the fluctuation rate of neighboring similar land and the inflation rate of land prices are as indicated below (in calculating the amount, the amount below the won shall be discarded).

(d) the previous compensation money referred to in the table (unit; Won; hereinafter referred to as “former compensation money”) contained in the main sentence of paragraph (1) on December 31, 2002 x the difference of the previous compensation money at the time adjustment fluctuation rate x the land price fluctuation rate 51,830,000 66,793,813,053,053,053 14,963,818 ( Address 6 omitted) land 90,675,000 135,469,469,152 ( Note 2) on December 31, 2002 x the land price fluctuation rate 51,830,000 on March 5, 5891, 5891 x the land price fluctuation rate ( Address 5 omitted)

Note 1) 66,793,818

Note 2) 135,469,152

If so, the appraisal value revised at the end of December 31, 2002 as of December 31, 200 is less than the amount obtained by multiplying the previous compensation received by the plaintiffs by the price fluctuation rate (cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc).

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs paid the previous compensation to the Defendant, and recovered each of the instant lands itself, and the Korea Land Corporation, the executor of the instant housing site development project, can receive compensation equivalent to the above appraised amount in the course of re-acquisition or expropriation of each of the instant lands from the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are in a position to receive the difference obtained by deducting the previous compensation from the above appraised amount.

Such status of the plaintiffs is based on the premise that a repurchase right has occurred with respect to each of the lands of this case, and the defendant did not notify the plaintiffs of the occurrence of the said repurchase right, and the plaintiffs lost the said repurchase right itself due to the lapse of the period for exercising the repurchase right on November 15, 2009. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for the above difference (as indicated in sub-paragraph (d).

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to Plaintiff 1 the damages for damages for ( Address 5 omitted) land KRW 14,963,818, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from November 23, 2009, which is the date of the adjudication of the competent court, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, from November 15, 2009, which is the date of loss of the right to repurchase, until August 13, 2015, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

In addition, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 44,794,152 won for damages on land and 20% per annum under the Civil Act from November 22, 2009 to August 13, 2015, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute on the existence and scope of his/her obligation to repay since November 15, 2009, which is the date of loss of the right of repurchase.

(e) Extinctive prescription;

1) The Defendant asserts that each of the instant lands was included in the prearranged area of the instant housing site development project, and the Korea Land Corporation, the executor of the instant housing site development project, commenced construction around March 2003, and thus, the Plaintiffs lost their right of repurchase, thereby causing the Plaintiffs to claim damages against the Defendant at the time of loss of their right of repurchase, and that the said right of claim for damages expired by prescription around March 2013

Even if the land subject to repurchase was expropriated, the obligation to transfer ownership is not extinguished, but merely impossible to perform the obligation to transfer ownership, and the repurchase right holder can file a claim against the project operator on the premise that the repurchase right is established (Supreme Court Decision 99Du3416 delivered on November 28, 2000). Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs’ right of repurchase is lost solely on the ground that each land of this case was included in the planned area for the housing site development project of this case and the Korea Land Corporation, the project operator, started construction around March 2003, which was the implementer, was included in the planned area for the housing site development project of this case, and the Plaintiffs lost their right of repurchase due to the lapse of the exercise period for the right of repurchase on November 15, 2009.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the Korea Land Corporation started construction around March 2003, which is premised on the plaintiffs' loss of the right of repurchase is without merit.

2) The Defendant asserts that, as the Plaintiffs, prior to November 15, 2009, the road project of this case was discontinued on or before the date on which the said right of repurchase was lost, and that there was a loss of the Plaintiffs’ right of repurchase due to the Defendant’s failure to notify of the occurrence of the said right of repurchase, the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against the Defendant was extinguished by prescription on or before November 15, 2012, when three years have elapsed since November 15, 2009, when the said right of repurchase was lost.

The Defendant acquired each of the instant lands from the Plaintiffs on November 15, 1999 through consultation, and became owned by the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to notify the Plaintiffs of the occurrence of a repurchase right as the implementer of the instant road project. In such circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs were aware of the occurrence of a repurchase right as to each of the instant lands by implementing the closure of the instant road project and the instant housing site development project, and there is no evidence to find otherwise that the Plaintiffs knew of the occurrence or loss of the repurchase right.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs knew of the occurrence and loss of the right of repurchase is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.

Since the judgment of the court of first instance has partially different conclusions, the part against the defendant exceeding the above recognition scope in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed as

Judge Cho Young-young (Presiding Judge)

1) 120,000 won ¡¿ 1.2061 square meters for time revision (i.e. x 1.0457 x 1.1534 x 1.047 x 2001 x regional factors x 1.30 x 1.25 x 284 m2.

2) 120,000 won x time revision 1.2061 (=1 x 1.0457 x 1.1534 x 1.047, 2001 x regional factors x 1 x 1.28 x 1.25 x 585 m2.