1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: E (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public notice: The Gyeonggi-do public notice on February 12, 2013; G notified on March 7, 2013; and the Namyang-si public notice on March 7, 2013; Defendant Gyeonggi-do public corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Corporation”);

B. On December 23, 2014, the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal (hereinafter “Defendant Committee”) rendered an application for adjudication - The details of an application for adjudication: the Plaintiffs were engaged in the container distribution storage business on the land in the instant project district; and the Plaintiffs were no longer able to conduct the business at the above location due to the implementation of the instant project, and thus, filed an application for adjudication seeking compensation for the business losses with the Defendant Committee.

- As a result of a ruling: The Defendant Commission, without obtaining permission under Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”), conducted a logistics storage business by installing containers, etc. and changing the form and quality of illegally in a development restriction zone. The Defendant Commission rendered a ruling of acceptance to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ application for adjudication on the ground that it does not fall under “business in a lawful place” under Article 45 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 197, Apr. 28, 2015; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule

(hereinafter referred to as “instant expropriation and ruling”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Requests against the defendant committee;

A. The Defendant Committee may increase the amount of compensation against the Defendant Committee, as the project operator can only serve as the Defendant, in a case where a landowner files a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation.