1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5,741,90 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 2,552,810 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from June 29, 2018 to October 17, 2019 to Plaintiff B.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business authorization and public announcement - Business name: C Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (2j) - Public announcement of project implementation authorization: The defendant;

B. The ruling of expropriation made on May 4, 2018 by the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee - The expropriation object: In the Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E, which is owned by the plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as "land 1"), 1/2 equity (hereinafter referred to as "second-party land") out of the F-189.8 square meters in Michuhol-gu, Incheon, which is owned by the plaintiff B, and 1/2 equity (hereinafter referred to as "the land 2", including the first land and the second land, hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case"): Compensation for losses: The first land 282,124,40 won, and 2 land 194,326,730 won owned by the plaintiff B - the date of commencement of expropriation: June 28, 2018.

- Adjudication by the Central Land Tribunal on October 25, 2018 - Compensation for losses: KRW 293,865,300 on the first land owned by the Plaintiff A, and KRW 200,628,090 on the second land owned by the Plaintiff B

(d) Court appraisal results - Each entry of KRW 299,607,200 of land No. 1 owned by the Plaintiff, KRW 203,180,90 of land No. 2 owned by the Plaintiff [based on recognition] No. 1 and No. 2 of the Plaintiff, the result of the appraisal entrustment to G of this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion is obliged to pay the difference between the court's appraisal result, which is the legitimate compensation for each of the lands of this case, and the compensation for the objection.

B. 1) In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for losses adopted by the court’s appraisal results, insofar as both the appraisal results and the court’s appraisal results, which form the basis of the judgment, do not constitute an unlawful ground for the assessment methods, and there is no evidence to prove that there was an error in the assessment contents, whether to trust any one of the appraisal results belongs to the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu14779, Jun. 29, 1993; 2008Du22129, Mar. 26, 2009). Considering the following circumstances revealed by the court’s request for appraisal with respect to G, the court’s appraisal results in each of the instant cases.