1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and announcement 1) Project name: Suwon Urban Planning Facility Project (4 route establishment works, E-Establishment works, and hereinafter referred to as "each project of this case")

2) Notice: G in Suwon-si Notice on March 4, 2010, and F 3 project operator in the F in the Suwon-si Notice on April 21, 2010: Defendant

B. 1) The Plaintiffs owned each land indicated in the initial lot number column in the annexed sheet No. 1 incorporated in the instant project zone ( Plaintiff C died on May 16, 2013, following the Plaintiff’s death on May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff inherited the right to claim for compensation for losses on the land listed in the annexed sheet No. 3 in the annexed sheet No. 2 remaining table No. 3 as co-inheritors, the co-inheritors around May 2015, through an inheritance division consultation with I, J, and K.

(2) Each land owned by the Plaintiffs is divided as indicated in the parcel number column included in the list of land incorporated in attached Table 1, and each divided land is incorporated into each of the instant projects (hereinafter “each of the instant incorporated land”).

(2) The Defendant acquired each of the instant incorporated lands through consultation. (3) Each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the remaining lands of this case,” and when each of the lands is individually named, the remaining lands of this case were not incorporated into each of the instant projects.

C. Claim for compensation of the remaining value decline in Plaintiff B’s land expropriation ruling (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”) dated April 20, 2015: (i) the instant case; (ii) the remaining land was changed to a narrow and long bridge shape; (iii) the remaining land was dismissed on the ground that it is possible to use it for the previous purpose in connection with L and M; (iv) there was no interruption of entry; and (v) the Plaintiff C’s claim for compensation of decline in the value of the remaining land in consideration of the conditions of contact, etc.; (iii) although the form of the remaining land in this case was changed, there was no interruption of entry into the land; and (v) the objective value decline in consideration of the location, form, etc. of the specific use area.