(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: E development project (hereinafter referred to as the "project of this case"): Public notice - Project operator, such as F, etc. public notice of Chungcheongbuk-do on December 26, 2008 - Project operator: Defendant;

B. Adjudication of expropriation made on June 28, 201 by the Chungcheongbuk-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “each land in this case”; hereinafter referred to as “the land in this case”) - The livestock industry (hereinafter referred to as “the livestock industry in this case”) of the Plaintiff Incorporated Corporation D (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) and obstacles (hereinafter referred to as “the livestock industry in this case”) - The date of expropriation: An appraisal corporation dialogue, a land appraisal corporation, a light appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Appraisal Corporation”) - Compensation Corporation for losses (1,460,248,130 won of each land in this case and its ground obstacles (such as trees), 15,310,00 won: The aggregate of the livestock industry in this case and the livestock industry in this case (hereinafter referred to as “the livestock industry in this case”).

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on November 16, 2012 - The content of the ruling - The appraisal corporation shall be dismissed - The appraisal corporation at sight and the appraisal corporation at a company.

D. Meanwhile, the deceased G died on July 15, 2012, and the deceased G’s heir is Plaintiff A (C), B (i) and C (i).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) With respect to land compensation ( plaintiffs A, B, and C's claim), the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication of expropriation for each of the instant lands is too low, and H through I's land is in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use and should be assessed as a group of land. Thus, as a result of the court's appraisal, it should be increased based on the amount calculated in accordance with the "case where each of the above lands is deemed as a group of land" (On the other hand, the above plaintiffs are the J land