A. As to Plaintiff A and E, 19,619,757 won and 19,381,933 won, respectively, from November 14, 2017;

(a) Authorization for project implementation and public announcement - The F Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): The location and size of the rearrangement zone: The G G 133,418 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rearrangement zone”) of the Gu during Gyeyang-si: The public inspection and public announcement of the designation of the rearrangement zone (hereinafter referred to as the “public inspection and public announcement of the case”): July 23, 2009 - the authorization date for project implementation (public announcement in Yangyang-si: September 22, 2015): the Defendant (the establishment of July 26, 2011).

B. The Plaintiffs, as indicated in attached Table 1, were the owners of residential buildings in the rearrangement zone of this case (hereinafter “each building of this case”) and resided from the date indicated in the “transfer date” column, which is prior to the public inspection and announcement date of each building of this case, and became eligible for cash settlement because they did not apply for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out

On July 31, 2017, the adjudication of expropriation was made by the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal on each of the instant buildings (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”).

At the time of the ruling of acceptance of this case, the appraised value of the plaintiffs' household members and each building of this case accepted by the plaintiffs are as shown in attached Table 1 above.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 13, and 14 (including the number of each branch), the result of the court’s commission of appraisal to J of the appraiser of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they were the owners of each of the buildings of this case who continued to reside from before the public announcement of each of the buildings of this case to the date of the expropriation ruling of this case, and who lost their living basis due to the rearrangement project, and thus, the defendant constitutes the plaintiffs, pursuant to Article 78 (1) and (5) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter "Land Compensation Act"), which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to the main sentence of Article 40 (1) of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions