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 court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment below as to the plaintiffs' assertion, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Even if the right to repurchase on the instant land takes place on or around June 201, the gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion, the alteration date of the public works project (the date on which the district plan of the instant Bogeumjari Housing project was approved and publicly announced) is the date of September 28, 2009, and accordingly Article 91(6) of the Public Works Act (amended by Act No. 10239, Apr. 5, 201; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”) is applied, and the exercise of the right to repurchase is not restricted.

In addition, Article 91(6) of the Revised Public Works Act provides that when a repurchase right is established after April 5, 2010, which is the date of amendment of the Act, the following theories conflict with regard to the time of establishment of the repurchase right under the Public Works Act:

The Plaintiffs are asserting the above assertion on the premise of “Admittance facility”. A.

According to this view, the requirements for repurchase under Article 91 of the Public Works Act are not the requirements for establishment, but the requirements for exercise.

B. The view that repurchase rights shall be established only when the requirements for repurchase under Article 91 of the Public Works Act are met. According to this view, the requirements for repurchase under Article 91 of the Public Works Act are the requirements for establishment.

It shall not apply where a repurchase right is established before April 5, 2010.

However, accepting the land of this case by the Plaintiffs is around October 21, 2003, prior to the amendment of the Act, and thus, Article 91(6) of the former Public Works Act does not restrict the exercise of the Plaintiffs’ right to repurchase.

B. The first sentence of Article 91(6) of the Act on the Improvement of Public Works.