1. Among the lawsuits of this case whose exchange is changed in the current trial;

A. The plaintiff A’s lawsuit is dismissed;

B. Plaintiff B-.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project name: C District urban planning road construction - Public announcement of project implementation authorization: D public announcement of liberae-gun on February 20, 2014, D public announcement of D, libera-gun on July 27, 2015, F public announcement of lurg group on September 14, 2015 - Project implementer: lurgian head;

B. Defendant’s ruling of expropriation on October 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): 122 square meters and its ground objects owned by Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant land, etc.”) - Compensation for losses on December 21, 2015 - Compensation for losses: 43,454,500 won

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on April 21, 2016 - The ground for recognition that Plaintiff B’s objection was dismissed - The fact that there exists no dispute, Gap’s evidence 10, Eul’s evidence 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The instant lawsuit against the Defendant of the Plaintiff A’s main defense is an inappropriate lawsuit filed by a person who has no standing to sue.

B. According to the facts and evidence as seen earlier, it is evident that the instant ruling of acceptance was made against the Plaintiff B, and the Plaintiff A is not a party to the instant ruling of acceptance.

Therefore, since the plaintiff A's lawsuit among the lawsuits of this case is not recognized as standing to sue, the defendant's main defense pointing this out is justified.

3. Whether the adjudication on expropriation of this case is null and void

A. The purport of the Plaintiff B’s assertion is as follows: (a) the instant adjudication on expropriation was made for the following reasons: (b) the instant land was intentionally concealed even though it was cadastral non-conformity; (c) the road works were completed without exclusion from the instant land, etc. (which appears to have not been included in the scope of road construction); (c) the appraisal was made by arbitrarily dividing the instant land without the landowner’s consent; (iv) the appraisal was made without the appraiser’s appraisal; (v) the consultation was made without the appraiser’s appraisal; (vi) the fact of consultation was concealed; and (vii) the obstacles were omitted.