1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

A. On February 18, 2010, the Defendant prepared and publicly announced the implementation plan for the urban planning facility project (road) project (D Expansion project; hereinafter “instant project”) as notified C in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. Plaintiff A owned each of the instant land E, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and Plaintiff B owned a F 397 square meters. On November 18, 2009, the 65 square meters out of the said E land was divided into G land, and 74 square meters out of F land into H land.

C. G land owned by Plaintiff A and H land owned by Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant incorporated land”) were incorporated into the instant project in accordance with the said implementation plan.

After completing the procedure for acquiring public land through consultation, the plaintiffs A completed the registration of transfer of ownership on G land on February 15, 201, and the plaintiffs B completed the registration of transfer of ownership on H land on June 4, 2010.

On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a claim against the Defendant for compensation on the ground that the price has decreased for E large 209 square meters and F large 323 square meters (hereinafter “the remaining land of this case”) remaining after being divided into the public works as above, but the Defendant did not comply therewith.

E. On May 20, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for the adjudication of compensation for losses on the remaining land of this case. However, on October 22, 2015, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ application for adjudication of compensation for losses on the grounds that there is no fall in the value of the remaining land of this case

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs asserted that the incorporated land in this case was used as the full-scale parking lot of the commercial building, but the remaining land in this case and its use value were significantly lowered as the incorporated land was incorporated into the business in this case and acquired through consultation.