1. The plaintiff F's appeal shall be dismissed.

2. A claim extended by Plaintiffs B, C, D, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, and Q in the trial of the Party.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: U.S. housing site development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Defendant on December 31, 2008, publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 5, 2012, BJ announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 24, 2012

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on May 23, 2013 - Land subject to expropriation: Each land and obstacles (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land, each of the instant land, each of the instant obstacles,” and collectively referred to as “each of the instant land, etc.”) indicated in the “Land, etc. subject to Expropriation” list of the details of compensation for losses attached hereto - The amount indicated in the “Adjudication on Expropriation” list of the details of compensation for losses - The starting date of expropriation: July 16, 2013.

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on April 17, 2014 - Compensation for losses: Each amount described in the column for "compensation for losses of this ruling" in the attached Table 1 detailed statement on compensation for losses.

D. Results of commission of appraisal by the court of the first instance for appraiser V - The amount recorded in the "amount appraised by the court of the first instance" in the annexed Table 1 detailed statement for compensation [based on recognition] is without dispute; Gap 1 through 4, 7 through 12, 14 through 17, 19, 20, 23 evidence, Eul 3 through 6 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); the result of commission of appraisal by the court of the first instance for appraiser V; the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether each appeal filed by the plaintiff A, B, C, D, F, J, K, L, M, N,O, and P is legitimate

A. The Defendant’s main defense of the safety of the Plaintiff A, B, C, D, F, J, K, L, M, N,O, and P were sentenced to a judgment of acceptance of the entire claim at the first instance court. As such, the instant appeal by the said Plaintiffs is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal.

B. The relevant legal principles seek a change in the revocation of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself. Therefore, in principle, an appeal against the judgment that won the entire winning case is not permitted, and the judgment is disadvantageous to the appellant.