1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: the plaintiffs' assertion that is newly or repeatedly emphasized in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as described in the following Paragraph 2; therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The Ordinance on the Relocation of Do Offices in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter "Ordinance of this case")

(1) The Special Act on the Construction and Support of Urban Areas for the Relocation of Do Offices (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Relocation of Do Offices”).

The public works pursuant to the Ordinance are not identical to each other, since the enactment and implementation time of ordinances or laws, legislative purpose and purpose of legislation, autonomous affairs, whether autonomous affairs are established, details of plans and procedures, approval authority, financing, etc. are different. Thus, the designation and public announcement of the planned area to be relocated to the office of the Gyeonggi-do on June 9, 2008 (Public Notice No. 2008-398, hereinafter referred to as the “public announcement of the planned area of this case”).

(2) Although it cannot be deemed that the designation of a planned development area itself is an implementation of a public project under the Act on the Relocation of Do Offices, it is unlawful that the Defendant Corporation conducted an appraisal and assessment on the basis of the date of public announcement of the scheduled development area of the instant planned development area of Do Offices, not on May 4, 2010, which is the date of designation and public announcement of the planned development area of Do Offices under the Act on the Relocation of Do Offices, and calculated the compensation amount. (2) Article 6(5) of the Act on the Relocation of Do Offices provides that “the necessary matters, such as the procedure for the designation of the planned development area of Do Offices, required documents, etc., shall be prescribed by municipal ordinances” but it does not delegate the designation itself to the

3 The legal effect of the designation of the planned development area under the Do Office Relocation Act is retroactive to the public notice of the proposed development area.