1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 7, 2012, in the procedure for the compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), Plaintiff A, B, and C acquired each one-third share of 1/3 of 966 square meters of forest land F in Ansan-si, Suwon-si, and Plaintiff D, and E acquired each one-half share of 1/2 of 185 square meters of 185 square meters of forest land in Ansan-si, Seoul-si, and each of the above shares (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On October 4, 2010, the Defendant: (a) determined a single real estate unit as an off-road parking lot, which is an urban planning facility; and (b) determined for modification of an urban management plan to change the specific use area of the instant real estate from the green conservation area to a natural green area; and (c) publicly notified on October 14,

C. The instant real estate was expropriated with the Defendant on June 17, 2013 following the adjudication of expropriation on April 15, 2013, and the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered an objection on August 22, 2013, and thereafter, the Plaintiff A, B, and C received KRW 25,59,000 as compensation for losses, respectively, and Plaintiff D and E received KRW 19,739,50 as compensation for losses.

At the time of the acquisition of the instant real estate by the Defendant, the instant real estate was indicated as a natural green belt in the land use planning confirmation certificate provided by the Defendant. The appraisal value assessed by the appraiser in the instant auction procedure is also premised on the premise that the specific use area of the instant

On the other hand, compensation for the instant real estate is calculated on the premise that the instant real estate is a preserved green belt.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and the judgment Plaintiffs do not clearly indicate that the compensation should be made on the premise that the instant real estate is a preserved green belt when the Defendant accepts the instant real estate in the land use plan confirmation form regarding the instant real estate. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the difference between compensation and compensation premised on the premise that the instant real estate is a natural green belt.