1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, Plaintiff H, I, J, K, and L respectively to the Defendant from 878,376 won and its related date from June 16, 2012.

1. The reasons why this court should explain concerning the above part of the ruling are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except in cases where “the date of July 18, 2013” as “the date of October 19, 2013,” and “the date of October 19, 2013,” respectively, and thus, the same shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. As to the scope of the underground segment, Article 4(1)2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Criteria for Compensation for Compensation for the Use of Underground Part and Land for the Construction of Urban Railroads (hereinafter “Ordinance on Compensation”) provides that “The scope of the underground segment included in the scope of the compensation for the use of underground segment shall be limited to the upper and lower height of underground segment, including the protection floor, and the protection floor shall be 6 meters in the case of a tunnel structure.” The project implementer, etc. clearly explained that the protection floor is the object of compensation at the residents’ briefing sessions for the compensation, and the protection floor cannot be actually used. As such, Article 4(1)2 of the Ordinance on the Compensation for the Compensation for the Compensation for the Compensation for the Use of Underground Part and the Compensation for the Compensation for the Use of Underground Part and the Compensation for the Compensation for the Compensation for the Underground Part shall be applied to the section below 5-10 meters of the soil depth by excluding

B. The remaining parts of the land to be expropriated with respect to the decline in the value of the use of the remaining parts and the land, other than the part of the land to be expropriated, are unable to use the underground floor by the Plaintiffs, so compensation should be granted for the remaining parts. The land to be expropriated is likely to lower the value of the remaining land by enabling only the underground portion of about seven meters except the six meters of the protected floor to be used, and the exchange value and security value are anticipated, and there is a concern about the decline in the value of the land to be exchanged and security value, and there is

C. As to the land S, the appraiser A.