1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the defendant's assertion in the trial, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. As to the allegation that there is no reduction in the value of the remaining land, the Defendant asserted that the project of this case did not cause any obstacle to the entry and exit of each of the remaining land of this case, and that the accessibility was better in the case of Plaintiff V, L, A, and AE land, and that it was caused by the installation of retaining walls at the request of landowners, including the Plaintiffs, etc., and thus, each of the remaining land of this case does not decrease in its value due to the project of this case.

There is no dispute between the parties that the present situation before and after the instant project is identical to the Defendant’s assertion. In full view of the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser E by this court, the result of the fact inquiry about the above appraiser by this court, the fact inquiry of the above appraiser by this court, the circumstances of each remaining land of this case and the present situation of Jin and Access are the same as before and after being transferred to the project site, so it cannot be deemed that the project of this case affected the calculation of the remaining land value.

In addition, Article 73 of the Land Compensation Act provides for the compensation of the remaining land and stipulates only the reduction of the price of the remaining land in addition to the requirement of partial expropriation of a group of land belonging to the same owner, and the situation that the retaining wall was installed at the request of the plaintiffs in the process of performing the project in this case does not affect the calculation of

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. As to the assertion of waiver of the right to compensate for losses arising from the preparation of the written consent, the Defendant.