1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the project implementer of the C business (hereinafter “instant business”), and the Plaintiffs are co-owners of D, 5,814 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiffs are co-owners of D, 5,814 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(1/2 shares). (b)

Part of the instant land is incorporated into the instant project and remains 1,880 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant remaining land”), and the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for a judgment seeking compensation for losses arising from the expropriation or depreciation of the remaining land, in order to have not reached an agreement with the Defendant on the purchase of the remaining land.

C. On September 29, 2016, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for adjudication on the ground that the remaining land in this case was usable as “forest” for its previous purpose, and that no loss was incurred due to the decline in the value of the remaining land.

(hereinafter “the first ruling of this case”) D.

In response to the above judgment, the Plaintiff filed an objection, but the Central Land Tribunal rejected the Plaintiff’s objection on April 27, 2017 on the same ground as the initial ruling of this case.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant objection”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

2. The value of the remaining land of this case was reduced because all the location, shape, environment, etc. of the remaining land of this case were changed due to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Therefore, the defendant should compensate the plaintiffs for losses caused by the decline in the value of the remaining land of this case.

3. There is no evidence to prove that the project of this case has reduced the value of the remaining land of this case as the project of this case.

Rather, according to the purport of subparagraph 2-3 through 6 of the evidence Nos. 2-6 and the whole arguments, the remaining land of this case is due to the project of this case in the first ruling of this case and the appraisal conducted in the objection ruling.