1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project name: Urban planning facility project (C Project) project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): Public notice of implementation plan: D/ Seoul Special Metropolitan City public notice on August 9, 2007 and E on March 27, 2008 - Project operator E: Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor.

B. On November 15, 2003 with respect to the whole project area of the instant project zone, the decision of the Fro-ro management plan (road) was publicly announced on November 15, 2003, and on May 6, 2004, the approval of the topographic map was publicly announced on the Gro-ro management plan (road) by the Jung-gu Seoul

C. On July 19, 2004, the land of 1,488 square meters owned by Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) was divided into 1,000 square meters in I, 883 square meters and J, 605 square meters in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “H”), and the land of 536.2 square meters in C, owned by Plaintiff B, was divided into K large 275.3 square meters and L large 262.9 square meters in size.

Plaintiff

B-owned J 605 square meters and Lb. 262.9 square meters owned by Plaintiff A were incorporated into the instant business area (hereinafter “each incorporated land of this case”), and the Defendant acquired the aforementioned J land from Plaintiff B through consultation on October 16, 2008 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 17, 2008. On May 18, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired the said L land through consultation from Plaintiff A and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 19, 2009.

As a result, the 183m2 owned by Plaintiff B and the 275m203m2 owned by Plaintiff A left the remaining land.

(hereinafter referred to as “each remaining land of this case”, and when each land is separately named, it shall be specified only by the lot number).

The Plaintiffs requested the Defendant to hold a consultation on compensation for damages due to the decline in prices of each remaining land of this case, but did not reach an agreement.

F. The Plaintiffs filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for adjudication of compensation for damages due to a decrease in the prices of each remaining land of this case, but the Central Land Expropriation Committee dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for adjudication on the ground that no price decrease is recognized on November 20, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] A.