1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and notification 1) Project name: C Project name (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”);

(2) Public Notice: D Public Notice of Dong-gu, Daegu Metropolitan City on December 30, 2013; Daegu Dong-gu, on December 22, 2014; and 3 project implementers F public Notice of Dong-gu, Daegu Metropolitan City on January 20, 2017: Defendant.

B. Subject to the expropriation ruling by the Daegu Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Expropriation ruling”) on April 5, 2017 (hereinafter “instant land”): Daegu-gu G Forest Land Expropriation (hereinafter “instant land”) in which the Plaintiffs own 1/2 shares, respectively, 514 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

2) The date of commencement of expropriation: Compensation for losses: 30,403,100 won: H and I.

C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on October 26, 2017 (hereinafter “the adjudication”) 1: Compensation for losses: 30,994,200 won: J Co., Ltd. and K.

D. As a result of the commission of market appraisal by this court, the market price as of April 5, 2017, which was at the time of the ruling on expropriation of the portion of the pertinent land, is KRW 74,060,000 (i.e., unit price of KRW 230,000 per square meter x 322 square meters) based on the premise that 322 square meters of the instant land among the instant land is being used as “eded field”

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The result of the plaintiffs' appraisal of the objection was that 322 square meters of the land in this case was actually used as "dry field" at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, but it was unlawful to evaluate the amount of compensation on the premise that the use of the entire land in this case is "dy field".

Therefore, the Defendant should additionally pay the difference between the reasonable compensation and the compensation according to the result of appraisal evaluated as a "dry field" among the land in this case.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in Appendix 1.

(c) for 1 public services.