1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 7,202,870, KRW 4,485,00 to the plaintiff B, and KRW 20,128,230 to the plaintiff C, and this shall apply.

1. Basic facts

(a) Project approval and announcement - Name of the project: [D] - Public announcement of project implementation authorization: December 5, 2016 - Public announcement E of Incheon Metropolitan City E: Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on October 19, 2017 - Land subject to expropriation: The “land subject to expropriation” as indicated in the attached Table attached hereto - The amount indicated in the “compensation for expropriation” column in the attached Table - The starting date of expropriation: November 20, 2017.

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on May 24, 2018 - Compensation for losses: The amount indicated in the column for “compensation for objection” in the attached Table.

(d) Court appraisal results - The amount stated in the “court appraisal result” column in the annexed sheet [based on recognition] as Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers), the result of this court’s entrustment of appraisal to F, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the reasonable compensation for the land subject to expropriation owned by the plaintiffs' assertion is the same as the result of the court's appraisal, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the court's appraisal result on the land subject to expropriation and the compensation for objection.

B. 1) In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for losses as a result of appraisal, unless there is any evidence to prove that both the result of appraisal and the result of the court appraisal are unlawful and there is no special error in the content of the appraisal, whether to trust any one of the appraisal results belongs to the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu14779, Jun. 29, 1993; 2008Du22129, Mar. 26, 2009). The result of the court’s appraisal and the result of its appraisal are illegal in the evaluation methods.

Inasmuch as there seems to be no special error in the content of appraisal, this Court does not add a number of price formation factors of the land to be expropriated by specifying the comparison of individual factors, etc. between the land to be expropriated and the standard land to be expropriated.

The result of the court appraisal that seems to be more properly reflected.