1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the plaintiffs' allegations in the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part which does not fall under the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance due to the absence of a lawsuit of appeal), and it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of

2. In a trial, the Plaintiffs asserts that, inasmuch as the remaining land of this case was subject to various restrictions on activities in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, the 2,028 square meters included in the railroad protection zone among the remaining land of this case, in particular, the said value decline should be accepted or compensated.

However, as examined in detail in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it cannot be deemed significantly difficult for the Plaintiffs to continue to use the remaining land as the site of the gas station, which is the status of use at the time of the decision of expropriation, by the Defendant to expropriate the land of first and second expropriations. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion of acceptance of the remaining land is without merit.

Furthermore, I examine the plaintiffs' remaining land depreciation argument.

According to the market price appraisal results and fact inquiry results with respect to the appraiser S of the party, the project implementation and acceptance of the project in this case led to a partial increase in the value (9,773,500 won) by raising the rate of difference in the conditions of the land among individual factors compared to the previous ones. Accordingly, the fact that no difference in the value of the remaining land has occurred (2,101,792,90 won - the value of the land on the remaining land before incorporation) after incorporation.

In light of these circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that there was a fall in the value of the remaining land of this case due to the implementation and acceptance of the project in this case, on the basis of each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 16 (including paper numbers), video and each of the above appraisal results and fact inquiry results.