1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendant decides as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. As to the assertion that a repurchase right has not occurred, the situation was unclear at the time of June 3, 2009, which was the date of public announcement of designation of a housing zone for the housing project of this case, and the same applies as at the time of September 28, 2009, which was the date of public announcement of approval of a housing zone plan. The determination of abolition of a road installed on each of the instant land was made on April 10, 2012, which is the date of public announcement of approval of the third district plan modification, and in fact until April 10, 2011, each of the instant land was used as a road. Thus, the time when the Plaintiffs’ repurchase right occurred should be deemed as at April 10, 2012, which was the date of abolition of the said road project, and the purport of the alteration of the repurchase right, which was allowed by the amendment of the Land Compensation Act by Act No. 10239, Apr. 5, 2010, which was not the alteration of the repurchase right of this case.