1. Plaintiffs B, C, D, and F of the judgment of the first instance court, and Plaintiff B against the Defendant.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the ruling are the same as that of the part against the plaintiffs in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the ruling is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The reasoning for the court's argument on this part is as follows. The court's reasoning for this court's argument is as follows: "Many error" at the top of the fifth highest bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows; the defendant must pay reasonable compensation in accordance with the result of the court's appraisal of each land of this case. "The plaintiff is entitled to pay due compensation in accordance with the result of the court's appraisal of each land of this case." The part for "for plaintiffs B, C, D, and F, from June 15, 2010 after the expiry of the period of consultation set forth in the notice of compensation consultation, 60 days from the day following the expiration of the period of consultation set in the notice of compensation consultation, and from June 28, 2010 after the expiration of the period of consultation, with respect to plaintiff E who claimed for adjudication of expropriation after the expiration of the period of consultation, the court of first instance is obligated to pay additional charges corresponding to the period of each application for expropriation."

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. (1) The plaintiffs' assertion (1) where a person subject to cash settlement under Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions or Article 45 (5) of the defendant's articles of incorporation fails to apply for parcelling-out, i.e., where they have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out within the period for parcelling-out, they are excluded from the object of parcelling-out under the authorized management and disposal plan, and they have failed to acquire the status of the person subject to cash settlement under the defendant's articles of incorporation.