1. The defendant shall be KRW 993,607,90 for the plaintiff A farming association corporation, KRW 91,04,60 for the plaintiff B, and KRW 19,635,00 for the plaintiff C, and KRW 19,635,00 for the plaintiff C.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business title - Business name: D public housing zone development project - Public housing zone development project implementation authorization: Public notice of project implementation authorization: E published by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 26, 2010 - Project

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on March 26, 2015 - The date of commencement of expropriation: May 19, 2015 - Each “land” in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiffs: The respective “land” in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiffs - The amount indicated in each “adjudication on Expropriation” in the attached Table for each land owned by the Plaintiffs.

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on December 17, 2015 - Plaintiff A farming association corporation (hereinafter “Plaintiff corporation”) and each expropriation compensation made under B: The amount stated in the column for “Objection” in the separate sheet on each land owned by the Plaintiffs - No dispute over dismissal of the Plaintiff C: Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Since the compensation for expropriation of each land owned by the plaintiffs as set forth in the plaintiff's argument or the decision on acceptance of an objection does not reach a legitimate compensation, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the difference between the compensation already received by the plaintiff from the legitimate compensation and the compensation for delay.

3. The defendant asserts that the part of the claim for expropriation compensation for the land No. 10 No. 10 of the table No. 10 owned by the plaintiff corporation should be dismissed as a double lawsuit, but there is no ground to regard the above part of the claim as a double lawsuit. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the result of the appraisal commission with respect to appraiser F designated by this court (hereinafter “court appraisal-1”), each of the lands owned by the plaintiffs was within the natural green area prior to the change of use (restricted area).