1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,012,50 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 1,012,50 for Plaintiff B; (c) KRW 10,990 for Plaintiff D; and (d) KRW 732,770 for Plaintiff E.

The reasons for the adjudication and public notice of the project approval - The project approval - the project approval - the project approval - the project approval - the project operator - the project operator - the expropriation adjudication - the expropriation adjudication 26 March 26, 2019 (hereinafter “instant expropriation adjudication”) - the respective land indicated in the plaintiffs’ list (hereinafter “instant land”) - the 50, 270, 270, 270, 270, 50, 270, 40, 50, 50, 205, 205, 40, 50, G270, 270, 270, 376, 379, 379, 379, 476, 205, 40, 50, 200, 306, 40, 50, 270, 406, 376, 379

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that since the compensation amount following the adjudication of acceptance and the adjudication of objection did not reflect the adequate value of the land of this case properly, the defendants are obligated to pay to the plaintiff the same money as stated in the purport of the claim as the difference between the reasonable compensation amount and the compensation amount recognized in the adjudication, and as the sum of damages for delay

3. Determination

A. In the lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for losses, the appraisal results which form the basis of the ruling and the court appraisal results are all evaluated methods.