Plaintiff

A shall dismiss each of the lawsuits filed by the plaintiff B and the remaining parts of the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff A.

The defendant is against the plaintiff A 21,729.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

A. Recognition and Public Notice of Projects - C District development projects implemented by the Defendant (Ij; hereinafter “instant projects”) - Public Notice D of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on June 29, 2016

B. The ruling on expropriation on November 8, 2018 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee – Persons subject to expropriation: B, 330 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “G land”): B, the date of commencement of expropriation: (a) January 2, 2019: - Compensation for losses: KRW 1,275,814,00 [the Plaintiffs claimed compensation for losses on the land owned by the Plaintiff, other than the instant land (hereinafter “F land”); (b) 1,275,814,000 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff; (c) 330 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “G land”), but the Central Land Expropriation Committee rejected the compensation on the ground that there was no consultation procedure between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant];

C. The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on May 23, 2019 (hereinafter “instant ruling”): Compensation for loss: KRW 1,278,387,500 [Plaintiff A claimed compensation for the remainder of land with respect to F, but was dismissed on the ground that no adjudication was made on expropriation];

D. The result of the appraisal conducted by an appraiser H (hereinafter “court appraiser”) entrusted with the appraisal by this Court - Compensation for loss: 1,300,117,00 won [founded grounds for recognition]; the fact that there is no dispute; Gap 1,2, and 7; evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7; Eul 1; the result of the appraisal entrusted to the court appraiser (hereinafter “court appraisal”); the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Whether the part of the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff A against the claim for the remaining land and the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff B are legitimate

A. As to this part of the plaintiffs' main claim against the defendant's main defense, the defendant can not seek as a lawsuit against the defendant as a party suit under public law the remaining expropriation itself as a lawsuit, and there is no fact that the plaintiffs filed a claim against the defendant for the remaining land, etc., and there is no consultation with the defendant as to the compensation for the remaining land or land outside the business district, and no adjudication has been made. Thus, all of the defenses as non-

B. 1) Land for public works.