1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 52,173,690, and each of the said amounts to Plaintiff B and C, respectively; and (b) against May 12, 2018.

1. Details of ruling;

A. On September 8, 2016, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor publicly announced the implementation plan for “E” implemented by the Defendant pursuant to Article 15 of the Act on Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure.

(Public NoticeF of Seoul Special Metropolitan City).

The defendant filed an application for adjudication to expropriate or temporarily use (the use period: 46 months from September 2017 to June 2021) each of the lands listed in the separate sheet in attached Table No. 1/2, 2, 3, and 1/4 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the lands of this case") necessary for the execution of the above private investment project, and the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City decided on March 23, 2018 the commencement date of expropriation or use of each of the lands of this case as of May 11, 2018 and decided to expropriate or use each of the lands of this case.

C. On September 20, 2018, the Central Land Tribunal filed an objection against the said adjudication on expropriation and use. On September 20, 2018, the Central Land Tribunal rendered an adjudication that changes the amount of compensation for the Plaintiffs into the amount indicated in the “amount of compensation” column of the “amount of compensation” column in the attached Table (hereinafter “the instant adjudication”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the plaintiffs' compensation for losses under the adjudication of this case did not reflect the factors establishing the price of the land to be expropriated in this case, the compensation for losses and reasonable compensation for losses arising from the court's appraisal result are sought.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the compensation for losses paid to the Plaintiffs is based on the arithmetic average of the appraised values by two appraisal business entities, respectively, at the stage of the adjudication on acceptance and the stage of the adjudication on acceptance, and thus, is unjust.