1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. Five percent of the appeal costs.

Approval and public announcement of the process of adjudication - Project approval and project name: Guang City Urban Development Project (E. 1; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): Defendant - project implementer: Public announcement of project approval: The adjudication on expropriation on April 25, 2016 by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal of Gyeonggi-do (Public Notice of Land Tax item for Urban Development Project) announced on April 10, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “adjudication on expropriation”): Each land indicated in the column for “land subject to expropriation” (hereinafter referred to as the “each land in this case” in total, and specified only as the parcel number when referring to individual land) - Compensation for losses: The same shall be as indicated in the column for “adjudication amount” in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiffs.

- The date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on June 9, 2016 - The adjudication made on January 19, 2017 by J-Appraisal Corporation and K-Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”): The content of the adjudication: The plaintiffs’ objection to each land of this case; The appraisal corporation: The result of the appraisal by L Appraisal Corporation and M Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “court appraiser”) by N of the first instance court of appeal (hereinafter “this appraisal”) (hereinafter “court appraiser,” and the result of the appraisal is “court first appraisal”) - The appraisal by the court shall be as shown in the column of “the amount of the first appraisal by the court” under the attached Table of appraisal:

The method of assessment: Compared standard is to select the standard land located within a development-restricted zone (natural green belt), to adopt compensation examples within a development-restricted zone (natural green belt), and to revise other factors, but the land listed in the table Nos. 2, 3, 5-1, 6, 7, 9, 9-2, 10-2, 11, 12, 13-2, 14-2, 15-2, and 15-2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "influent land"), among each land in this case, has been revised by the gap rate of 1.2 through 1.3 from the administrative condition item in the case of individual comparison. The result of a request for appraisal supplementation to the court appraiser of the first instance court, as a result of the request for the court appraiser of the first instance court, is to the land at issue of conditional complementary appraisal.