1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,943,00 for the Plaintiff B and its related KRW 5% per annum from March 18, 2008 to August 26, 2015.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project name: C road construction (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public notice: D public notice given by the Seoul Regional Land Management Office on November 15, 2004, and E public notice given on January 24, 201, - Project implementer E public notice given by the Seoul Regional Land Management Office: Seoul Regional Land Management Office

B. The Plaintiffs owned the land indicated in the initial parcel number column in the list of land incorporated in the instant project zone, but each of the lands owned by the Plaintiffs was divided as shown in the list of land incorporated in the attached Table 1 and divided for the instant project (hereinafter “instant incorporated land”). Accordingly, each of the lands listed in the list of the remaining land in the attached Table 2 remains without being incorporated into the instant project.

(hereinafter referred to as “each remaining land of this case” and the individual land shall be specified by the sequences).

The Plaintiffs requested the Defendant to hold a consultation on the compensation for the loss of the value of the remaining land, but did not reach an agreement.

Therefore, although the Central Land Expropriation Committee applied for the adjudication of compensation for the depreciation of the remaining land, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the plaintiffs' application on August 21, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 14 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The remaining parts of the Plaintiffs’ assertion Nos. 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are linked to F, a general national highway (hereinafter “F”), and F, pursuant to the condition that it is not a master land because it can play a street role for the remaining parts (hereinafter “instant condition No. 1”). The remaining parts of the Plaintiffs’ assertion Nos. 5, 7, 8, and 12 are not adjacent to F, but adjacent to F, and were adjacent to the land incorporated into the Plaintiffs’ ownership, which was adjacent to F.