1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 46,372,690 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 10,797,90 to Plaintiff B; (c) KRW 11,235,60 to Plaintiff C; and (d) KRW 2,474 to Plaintiff D.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business authorization and public announcement - Business title: F Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (second; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): Public announcement of project implementation authorization: Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City public announcement on March 18, 2016 - Project implementer: Defendant

B. Adjudication on expropriation by July 14, 2017 of the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal - Land to be expropriated: Land indicated in the column for “land to be expropriated” in the attached Table (referring to land located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-dong, and only the lot number is omitted in the land indication) - Compensation for losses: The amount indicated in the “compensation for expropriation” in the attached Table - The date of commencement of expropriation: September 7, 2017.

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on December 21, 2017 - Compensation for losses: The amount indicated in the column for “compensation for this ruling” in the attached Table.

(d) Court appraisal results - The amount stated in the “court appraisal result” column in the annexed sheet [based on recognition] A, the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of this Court’s entrustment to I, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the reasonable compensation for the land to be expropriated by the plaintiffs' assertion is the same as the result of the court's appraisal, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the court's appraisal result and the adjudication compensation to the plaintiffs.

B. 1) In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for losses as a result of appraisal, unless there is any evidence to prove that both the result of appraisal and the result of the court appraisal are unlawful and there is no special error in the contents of the appraisal, whether to trust any one of the appraisal results belongs to the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu14779, Jun. 29, 1993; 2008Du22129, Mar. 26, 2009). In full view of the purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the court’s appraisal results and the result of the court’s appraisal are unlawful in the evaluation methods.

It is difficult to see that there is a special error in the assessment.