All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. A.

On the basis of the plaintiffs' preliminary claims added at the trial.

1. The facts based on the facts were located both in NN and O around the roads of the Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, but the Gyeonggi-do Governor announced the above P P P P on October 11, 197, the Gyeonggi-do government announced the urban planning facilities of Qro (road). Accordingly, the land located on the O preceding page around the above M road was incorporated into the road.

After that, the commercial building on November 13, 1981 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) was newly built on the ground of 337 square meters divided from the land located on the NA, which was located on the NA prior to the NM road.

The Plaintiffs demanded land compensation on August 31, 2010 on the ground that part of the above land is assigned to the road, as co-owners with the same share in the attached list “public land share” as indicated in the attached list for the above RR 337 square meters.

With regard to this, the Defendant conducted a survey on the road portion after the on-site inspection of the said R, and accordingly, the L prior to the said R was divided into 43 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the said R’s share relation was transferred to the instant land as it is.

The Defendant shall decide to consult with the Plaintiffs on the compensation for the instant land, and from September 19, 201 to the Plaintiffs on August 17, 2011.

9. up to 2. By furnishing a certificate of seal impression, identification card, certificate of seal imprint, etc., a notice of requests to respond to a compensation consultation with the construction division in the Nam-gu Office.

(hereinafter “the instant request for consultation”). The Plaintiffs submitted a certificate of seal impression, etc. within the above period and affixed a seal imprint on the seller’s column of the land sales contract presented by the public official in charge, but the Defendant did not affix a seal to the buyer’s column

Since then, the Defendant confirmed that the instant land was not the land (unclaimed land) after being expropriated as the urban planning facilities (road) and did not receive compensation. On October 14, 201, the Defendant withdrawn the instant request for consultation from the Plaintiffs on the premise that the instant land was the unclaimed land.