1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Additional Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, within the scope of the horizontal area of compensation, the sum of six meters of the protection floor based on YV for the protection of facilities on both sides of the width of the underground facilities of this case should be included in the calculation of the incorporated area.

Therefore, a sprink and a knV for the protection of facilities refers to any of the following facilities (including sites) for urban railroad facilities as stipulated in Article 3, subparagraph 3 of the Urban Railroad Act:

Urban railroad tracks, historic and service facilities (including logistics facilities, transfer facilities, convenience facilities, etc.). (b)

Track repair bases, rolling stock maintenance depots, rolling stock storage facilities and storage facilities to repair and maintain tracks and urban rolling stock;

Power facilities, information and communication facilities, signal and train control facilities, d. for urban railroads.

Facilities for the development, testing and research of urban railroad technology;

(f) Other education and training facilities to train urban railroad management training and railroad professionals. (f) Since those facilities for the construction, maintenance, repair and operation of urban railroads are not included in the facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree, it is difficult to view that the width of the underground facilities in this case is increased on both sides due to the construction of dynam, and in light of the ordinances of this case, there is no ground to include the protection floor by dyV in the horizontal area of compensation, and thus, the above assertion by the

B. The Plaintiff shall calculate the amount of compensation after applying the “three-dimensional utilization lower rate,” instead of the “stopy level,” which serves as the basis for the three-dimensional scope of compensation, by applying the “14.5 meters additionally reflected in the six-meter level of protection floor by YV.”