1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

A. On December 26, 2013, the Mayor/Do Governor: (a) designated the 208,700 square meters of Dongwon E as a zone urban development zone; and (b) established and publicly announced a development plan stating the details of the land to be expropriated in the F Zone Urban Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”) with the project implementer as a Tong-si mayor; and (c) designated and publicly announced the project implementer as a zone urban development zone.

(G) Gyeongnam-do Notice G.

On October 1, 2015, Do Governors changed the area of the urban development zone from 208,700 square meters to 209,292 square meters with respect to the instant project on October 1, 2015, and approved and publicly notified the designation of the urban development zone (development plan) and the implementation plan.

(H.C. of Gyeongnam-do)

On June 23, 2016, the Gyeong-nam Do governor revoked the designation of the implementer of the urban development project and the authorization of the implementation plan for the Dong-young City, according to the Tong-si's opinion that the actual compensation is impossible due to the special environmental conditions of FJ I, and the financial capacity of the Dong-young city is weak.

(J) Gyeongnam-do Notice. D.

On July 21, 2016, the Gyeongnam-do Governor designated a project implementer on the condition that “Seoul-do Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul-do Development”) shall apply for authorization of an implementation plan by reflecting the details of the designation of an urban development zone and the formulation of a development plan in the F Zone Urban Development Zone, publicly notified as G (F Zone 26 December 26, 2013).”

E. On October 20, 2016, the Gyeongnam-do Governor approved and publicly notified the designation of an urban development zone (development plan) and the implementation plan with a project implementer as an unlimited urban development project.

(K) On January 12, 2017, the development of an undeveloped City applied for expropriation ruling with respect to the land and obstacles listed in the attached Table 1 owned by the Plaintiffs to the local Land Tribunal of Gyeongnam-do on January 12, 2017, and on February 21, 2017, the Defendant Gyeongnam-do Land Tribunal of Gyeongnam-do applied for expropriation ruling as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant expropriation ruling”): Land and obstacles listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “each land and obstacles of this case”).

2) The date of commencement of expropriation: