1. All of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs B, C, D, E, G, J, K, and L.

1. Details of ruling;

A. Designation of the planned area for the relocation of the border road to the Do government office, - Public announcement of the planned area of June 9, 2008, under Article 23 of the Ordinance on the Relocation of the border road to the Do government office (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance of this case”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”).

- Purpose: Relocation of the Gyeong-do Office and construction of a city located in the jurisdiction of the Do Office - The location of the planned area: The area of the Dong-do Office of Pungcheon-gun, Ancheon-do.

(b) project approval and public notice - project approval and public notice - project implementation (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) for the construction of the new city (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) to the Gyeongbuk-do on May 4, 2010, No. 2010-168, May 10, 2010, Notice No. 2010-177, and Notice No. 2011-334, August 26, 201; Defendant Corporation:

C. The Defendant Commission’s ruling of expropriation on May 11, 2012 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”): Land and obstacles listed on the list of land and obstacles owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each of the instant land and obstacles”) - Compensation for losses: Each “adjudication of expropriation” is described in the separate sheet of land and obstacles.

- The date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on June 19, 2012 - An appraisal corporation and the central appraisal corporation on June 19, 2012 (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”).

D. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on objection on August 22, 2013 (hereinafter “instant ruling”) - Contents of the ruling: The same shall be as indicated in the separate sheet of land and each list of obstacles.

- An appraisal corporation: Each entry in Gap's evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence, 1, 14, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments, which are the grounds for recognition;

2. Determination as to the primary claim against the defendant committee

A. The Defendant Corporation asserted that the Plaintiffs did not discuss only the notification of compensation price to the Plaintiffs, who are owners of land, etc.