1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money stated in the "amount of discount" in the attached Table, as well as the amount from October 14, 2016 to October 2018.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: R-Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - Public notice of project implementation authorization: Si public notice of Seocheon-si on February 16, 2015, and T public notice of Seocheon-si on March 7, 2016 - Project implementer: Defendant

B. The ruling of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Gyeonggi-do on August 29, 2016 - Land subject to expropriation: The “land subject to expropriation” as indicated in the “land subject to expropriation” as indicated in the annexed sheet - The amount indicated in the “compensation for expropriation” as indicated in the annexed sheet - the starting date of expropriation: October 13, 2016.

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on July 20, 2017 - Compensation for losses: The amount indicated in the column for “compensation for objection” in the attached Table.

(d) The court appraisal results - The amount indicated in the “court appraisal result” column in the annexed sheet [based on recognition] A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of a commission of appraisal to U of this court, and the result of a fact inquiry, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion 1) The appraisal result, which forms the basis of the Plaintiffs’ ruling, is too low in the value of the land to be expropriated by the Plaintiffs. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the reasonable amount of compensation, such as the land to be expropriated, and the amount of compensation for the said ruling. 2) The Defendant’s court appraisal is located within the instant project zone, while selecting a comparative standard for the land to be expropriated, and the land to be expropriated is similar to that of the land to be expropriated, and the surrounding environment is similar and geographically close to the surrounding environment, and the land to be expropriated X-si and Seocheon-si W was selected as a comparative standard even if it is appropriate as a comparative standard.

In other factors revision, the court's appraisal takes into account the transaction cases of land inappropriate for comparison cases in terms of specific use area, utilization status, surrounding environment, geographical accessibility, etc., and applied the correction more higher than the result of the appraisal of objection.

Therefore, the result of the court appraisal is illegal.

(b) in the lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for losses resulting from the assessment 1 appraisal.