1. The defendant against the plaintiffs as to the money stated in the "request amount" column and each of the above money in the separate claim statement.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around October 30, 1995, the Defendant Do governor publicly announced the determination of a road zone (revision) that recognizes the road section of approximately 71 km of the 71km of the 310-line local highway as the 310-line local highway, among the 310 lines of the above local highway, around February 10, 1997, the Defendant Do governor publicly announced the determination of the road zone (revision) for the confirmation and packing works (the entire road packing works and the road use thereof; hereinafter referred to as the “instant road project”).

3) In order to incorporate the land necessary for the road project of this case into the site, the Defendant stated the “owner” as the date indicated in the “acquisition Date” column in the table below, and each owner (excluding Nonparty D and E, the remaining owners are the Plaintiffs of this case.

(2) The lower court determined that each of the instant lands was owned by the Plaintiff, and that each of the instant lands was owned by the Plaintiff, and that each of the instant lands was owned by the Plaintiff. In addition, the lower court determined that each of the instant lands was owned by the Plaintiff on July 25, 201 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”). The lower court determined that each of the instant lands was owned by the Plaintiff on July 25, 201 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

2) As to the public land acquisition consultation (Plaintiff F-owned land was subject to land expropriation)

The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the Plaintiff’s ground. The Defendant asserted that the land was incorporated into the road site for the instant road project on February 10, 1997, on the ground that the land protocol (see the evidence No. 3-2) attached to the decision of Defendant Do governor on February 10, 1997, which was owned by the Plaintiff AE, is not indicated in the land protocol (see the evidence No. 14), but it is unclear whether the said land was incorporated into the road site for the instant road project.