1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, with the exception of the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the following matters among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

The 5th sentence of the first instance court shall be amended to "A 29" by "A 29 through 36".

Pursuant to the last tenth sentence of the first instance court;

“Last.” shall be deleted and the following shall be added:

1. “The land which is not used for the business on the grounds of the alteration of urban planning, etc. other than the grounds of subparagraphs 1 through 11 after acquiring the relevant land: the period during which the relevant grounds occur.”

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. As to the assertion that the farmland creation cost should be deducted from the necessary expenses, the plaintiffs claim that the expenses should be deducted from the expenses paid as the farmland creation cost. Thus, in full view of the entries in the evidence No. 37 and the result of the fact inquiry into the Korea Rural Community Corporation in the trial court, the plaintiff A paid each farmland creation cost of KRW 7,065,80 on March 4, 2004, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff B paid each farmland creation cost of KRW 4,923,40 on December 16, 2003, but paid the full refund on December 16, 2013. Thus, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs paid the above expenses as the farmland creation cost, and therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' claim is without merit.

B. As to the assertion that Article 83-5 (1) 12 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act constitutes “where the land is not used for business due to justifiable reasons, such as modification of the urban planning,” the Plaintiffs’ suspension of construction due to the order to restore the Gwangju City market to its original state and the failure to use the land in this case constitutes non-business suspension period.”