1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A, B, C, D, and network N were owners who completed the registration of ownership transfer for each land indicated in the “land” column in the “land” sheet for calculation of the claim amount by Plaintiff 1 (hereinafter “each land of this case”). Plaintiff E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L are the successors of each network N.

B. On June 17, 2002, the Suwon City announced the approval of the implementation plan of the R (hereinafter the combination of the above projects) as to KRW 10,000 as to KRW 10,00,00, as to KRW Q Q2, as to KRW 10,000, as to KRW 20,000, as to KRW 10,000, and on June 8, 2003, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on each land of this case on the ground of the acquisition of each temporary public land indicated in the “acquisition date” column of the Plaintiff’s land list by the Plaintiff for the instant 1 project, and thereafter, each land of this case was

C. On December 26, 2006, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do publicly announced the decision to abolish the roads installed on each of the instant land as a plan for the installation of urban planning facilities, designating the KRW 1,00, such as Suwon-si S land, including each of the instant land, as a sub-owned area in Suwon-si.

Gyeonggi-do Public Notice V

D. According to the above notification, on September 23, 2008, the Suwon City announced the project implementation authorization for the U project (hereinafter “instant 2 project”). On November 27, 2008, the Suwon City announced the designation of the project implementer and the implementation plan for the said project.

Notice X (based on recognition), entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, without dispute.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that each of the lands of this case is no longer necessary due to the discontinuation of the first project of this case on November 27, 2008, which was within 10 years from the date of acquisition of each of the lands of this case by the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs exercise the right of repurchase under Article 91 (1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter "Land Compensation Act").