1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 12, 1978, Plaintiff D owned 121 square meters and F 773 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul. On December 16, 2009, Plaintiff D donated the instant land to Plaintiff A, a grandchild, and completed the registration for transfer of ownership on January 4, 2010.

B. On October 11, 2004, the head of Seocho-gu Office published the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice G for the purpose of the determination of the urban management plan (draft) as to the land of this case on the land use planning confirmation, and subsequently, on May 19, 2005, the head of the Seoul Metropolitan Government decided the urban planning facilities (park) as to the land of this case as H’s public notice of Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 19, 2005 according to the above formulation.

The decision on the urban management planning (hereinafter referred to as the "decision on the proposed urban planning") by the head of Seocho-gu Office shall be referred to as the "decision on the proposed urban planning", and the decision on the urban planning facilities (park) by the head of defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be

Then, while the defendant Seocho-gu was the implementer of the project (the name of the project: I Park creation project; hereinafter "the project of this case") in accordance with the decision of the urban planning of this case and applied for the adjudication that it did not reach an agreement with the plaintiff D at the time of the land of this case for expropriation. Accordingly, the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City decided on July 28, 2006 the compensation for losses for the land of this case at KRW 2,073,290,90, and the starting date of expropriation at September 15, 2006. The defendant did not pay or deposit the above compensation until now due to the lack of budget.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff-owner of the instant land did not proceed for a long time, it constitutes a case where the need to install a park is no longer possible. However, it is limited to the exercise of ownership of the instant land for a long time without compensation.