1. The Defendant: (a) each of the KRW 1,673,000 to the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the Appointeds B; and (b) from August 9, 2018 to May 1, 2019.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project name 1) Project name: C2 Project approval notice given to the head of the Seoul Regional Construction and Management Administration 3 Project approval notice: D Public Notice of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on December 27, 2016;

B. Subject to expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on June 14, 2018: The land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff and the Appointor B (hereinafter “Appointed”) own 1/2 shares, respectively, in Gwangju City E, 956 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

[2] Compensation for losses on August 3, 2018: 50,907,000 won for each portion of the Plaintiff and the Appointor, each of whom was jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Appointor, became the remaining land of 1,014 square meters, and a single-story house is constructed on the remaining land.

D. The appraisal value of the instant land by the court appraiser G - The appraisal value of the instant land in question - If the land is assessed as forest land - the value of the instant land in question at the request of the Plaintiff at KRW 239,160,000 if it is assessed as land - The value of the instant land in question is assessed as master land upon the request of the Plaintiff, but it is not written since the amount is less than

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, result of appraiser G’s appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion is used as the rear end of the instant land on the remaining land and is not clearly distinguishable from the housing site, its use status should be viewed as the site, and since it is in contact with the current situation, it is unreasonable to evaluate the instant land as the forest land, which is the blind land, in the adjudication of expropriation, even though it should not be viewed as the blind land.

In addition, it was wrong that the comparative standard land was selected as the forest and field H, and the above I, which is the site of the electric power resource housing zone, should be selected and assessed.

Therefore, the defendant should pay the appraised value when the court appraiser assessed the land of this case as the site with due compensation for losses for the land of this case to the plaintiff and the selected party.

B. Determination 1: The instant land