1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is.

On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court stated the following as follows: “Although a separate lawsuit (Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap18107, Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap18107) was filed, the first instance court lost it in the process of the appeal as Seoul Administrative Court 2015Nu46743.”

(b) Nos. 6 through 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted.

(The Defendant withdrawn the defense at the trial). (C)

Part 13 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be referred to in paragraph 19 of the said Act as follows:

In addition, even in cases of compensation by substitute land, the Plaintiff calculated the supply price of substitute land by applying the "average bid price ratio by use," which is the average value of the successful bid price of the same land for general use. Thus, in this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the supply price of substitute land should be calculated based on the average bid price ratio of four lots sold in the Gu 5 block. However, Article 63(1)2 of the former Land Compensation Act only provides that the supply price of substitute land shall be the general sale price, and no specific method of calculation is provided, so the supply price of substitute land in all urban development zones shall be calculated by the same method, and therefore, unlike the land compensation plan of this case, it does not refer to another substitute land compensation that is calculated based on the successful bid ratio of the same land for the same use, rather than the "same block."

2. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.