The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In calculating compensation for expropriation of each of the instant land in this court, the Defendant should have the authority of discretion to change the land price to the planning management area in order to consider and evaluate the status of specific use area as a planned management area in calculating compensation for expropriation of each of the instant land. Since each of the instant land was changed to the urban area by the public notice of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do cannot be deemed to have the authority of discretion to plan to the Governor, so long as it did not change it to the planned management area, it does not constitute a deviation or abuse of the right of discretion to plan. 2) The land category differs between the instant J, K and the instant land, and the instant M, N,O, andO, even if the land was used as the open site, and even if the land was used as the open site, the form and quality of the instant land was illegally changed without permission, and it constitutes an unlawful alteration of the form and quality of the road constructed in 13 square meters part among the instant N land, it is once assumed that the Plaintiffs’ land was in an indivisible relationship with the above 10-5th part of forest land.