1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant Union Nos. 7 and 14 of the first instance judgment (“Defendant Union”) shall be dismissed as “the instant union”; and (b) the Defendant Company’s additional assertion in the trial is identical to the ground of the first instance judgment, except supplementation of the judgment in the corresponding part, and thus, (c) the same shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Supplementary judgment

A. Under Article 10(2) of the Addenda of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002), the Superintendent of the Office of Education on the ground of abuse of rights shall establish and publicly announce a phased implementation plan on the instant land by December 31, 2001. Article 48(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 10599 of Apr. 14, 201) and Article 42(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23718 of Apr. 10, 201), stating that “where the need to install urban planning facilities ceases to exist” or “Where urban planning facilities are not implemented by 10 years after the date of public announcement of the determination of urban planning facilities as school sites, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land was unconstitutional and invalid under the premise that the Plaintiff did not establish the instant urban planning facilities project at all by 200 days.

As such, a long period.