1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows 2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance is amended as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Articles 1 and 3, except for addition of the judgment on the additional arguments of the plaintiff B, C, and D as stated in the following 3. (c) Since the defendant withdraws the defense of first instance at the court of first instance, the part in paragraph (2) is excluded

2. Parts to be corrected;

(a) 3rd written decision of the court of first instance add “I supply 9 pages ....” followed: “I will add the location and size of substitute and general supply sites to the project operator in consideration of efficient land use, etc. after the receipt of an application for substitute land compensation.”

B. The part of the first instance court’s decision that “two persons have filed separate complaints (this Court 2014Guhap70877)” was amended to the effect that “two persons have filed separate complaints with the Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap70877, but have lost, and the appeal was lodged by Seoul High Court 2015Nu40097, but the appeal was dismissed on October 29, 2015.”

3. Details of the judgment added;

A. The summary of the plaintiffs B, C, and D's assertion is as follows, and the above plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have refused to enter into a contract for the supply of substitute land without justifiable grounds, and therefore, they still are in the position of the right holder to enter into a contract for the supply of substitute land as stated in

1) Article 7(1) of the Urban Development Act provides that when an urban development zone is modified, opinions of residents, relevant experts, etc. shall be heard through public inspection or public hearing, and the opinions presented in public inspection or public hearing shall be reflected if deemed reasonable. However, the aforementioned Plaintiffs are deemed to have formulated a development plan for H urban development zones and the implementation plan is modified (hereinafter “the foregoing”).