(a) Project approval and notification 1): Project name A (the third section, the hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”);

2) Public notice of authorization for project implementation: Defendant 3 project implementer B announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on December 27, 2016:

B. Subject to the expropriation ruling by the Central Land Tribunal on August 9, 2018 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”): With respect to the subject matter of expropriation as stated in the separate sheet of acquired land and remaining land, the “land acquired” column 2: on October 4, 2018, the date of commencement of expropriation: As to the subject matter of expropriation: on October 3, 2018, the amount indicated in the separate sheet of compensation by Plaintiff: (a) the amount indicated in the “amount recognized for expropriation” column in the separate sheet of compensation by Plaintiff: (b) the remaining land (each land indicated in the separate sheet of acquired land and remaining land): 4): C and D Co., Ltd.

C. The court's entrustment of appraisal to appraiser E (hereinafter "court appraiser E") (hereinafter "the above appraisal entrustment result") 1) compensation for the remaining land in the annexed list of compensation by plaintiff 2: The compensation for losses for the remaining land in the annexed list of compensation by plaintiff 2 : Each amount entered in the annexed list of compensation by plaintiff 2 : The "amount of loss below the residual value" in the annexed list of compensation by plaintiff 2 : The fact that there is no dispute about the "amount of loss below the residual value" in the annexed list of compensation by plaintiff 2 / each entry in Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 4 (including the number of numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the court's entrustment of appraisal to appraiser E, the whole purport of the arguments,

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the amount of compensation determined by the expropriation ruling of this case is significantly less than the price of the land incorporated into the plaintiffs' ownership or the price decline of the remaining land. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount stated in the "request amount" column and the damages for delay thereof in the separate sheet corresponding to the difference between the reasonable compensation for the land incorporated into the plaintiffs and the price of the remaining land and the price of the compensation.

(b) Appendix attached to the relevant legislation;