1. The plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. Of the litigation costs between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the part regarding the appraisal cost.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: G Housing redevelopment improvement project - Public notice of project implementation: H on August 25, 201, the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City public notice of Bupyeong-gu on October 20, 201, the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City public notice of Bupyeong-gu on October 20, 201, the J-project implementer public notice of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on September 22, 2015 - the Defendant;

B. Adjudication on expropriation by December 1, 2016 of the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal - The object of expropriation and compensation for losses: Each amount indicated in the column for “subject to expropriation” in the attached Table “subject to expropriation” owned by the Plaintiffs and the “compensation for losses for expropriation” column, respectively, the starting date of expropriation: January 25, 2017.

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on July 20, 2017 - Compensation for losses: Each amount indicated in the column for compensation for losses for the adjudication of objection: [based on recognition] written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of all pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. (1) The plaintiffs' assertion that the result of the plaintiffs' assertion of objection is erroneous in evaluating the value of the plaintiffs' property owned by the plaintiffs too low. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the reasonable compensation according to the result of the court appraisal and the compensation determined by the ruling as compensation for the expropriation of the plaintiffs' property.

(2) During the continuation of the lawsuit of this case, the Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the lawsuit of this case after receiving the increased amount of compensation in the judgment on objection between the Defendant and the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant paid the Plaintiffs increased compensation in the judgment on objection.

Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have any more rights or interests to seek the increase of compensation as the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

B. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the Defendant’s payment of the increased compensation of KRW 3.4 million to the Plaintiff A by November 10, 2017 between the Defendant and the Defendant on November 9, 2017, and the Plaintiff A shall receive the compensation without objection on the date of receiving the compensation.