1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The part resulting from the intervention in the appeal costs shall be the intervenor joining the defendant.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “420,60,287 won” under “420,600,278 won” under “420,60,278 won” under the 14th 7th 7th 7th of the judgment of the court of the first instance; “20,600,278 won” under the 12th below the 12th 2nd below the judgment of the court of the first instance; and the part from the 12th to the 14th 5th st 5th st th th th th of the judgment of the court of the first instance is the same as the part on the grounds for the judgment of the court of the first instance except for

2. The defendant asserts that, around December 28, 2007, the development project was not subject to the "conversion of public works" under Article 91 (6) of the former Public Works Act, and the repurchase right was created against the plaintiffs. However, on April 5, 2010, the Act on Public Works was amended and the development project was included in the "Public Works Act" under Article 91 (6) of the former Public Works Act. Accordingly, according to the amended Act, the repurchase right does not occur to the plaintiffs. Thus, this circumstance should be considered as the grounds for limitation on liability of the defendant. Further, even if the development project was revised by Act No. 10239 on April 5, 2010 and included in the "public works project" under Article 91 (6) of the former Public Works Act, the defendant's assertion that limitation on the repurchase right had already been established at the time of approval of the implementation plan is not enough to be considered as a different ground.