1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the plaintiffs asserted in the trial while appealed, are not significantly different from the contents claimed by the plaintiffs in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is re-examined together with the plaintiffs' assertion, the judgment of the court of first instance

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as follows, except for the revision of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance to the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "Defendant B corporation" in Part 3 of Part 3 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be "Defendant BE corporation". The judgment of the court of first instance is that "Plaintiff M,O, P, R, S, T, U, and X also accepted obstacles in the case of the plaintiff, M, P, T, U, and X, but the above plaintiffs filed an application for the market price appraisal of land at the court of first instance, but filed an application for the market price appraisal of the obstacles in the trial at the court of first instance, and this court did not adopt it, and the above plaintiffs did not claim for an increase in the amount of compensation for obstacles, and thus, the indication of obstacles to the above plaintiffs among the objects to be admitted of this case is omitted."

The part of the first instance judgment No. 4, 17, i.e., “the plaintiff has no certificate of admission,” in the first instance judgment No. 5, is as follows.

The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the land price increase after the designation of the instant urban renewal acceleration district should be reflected in the amount of compensation, since the land price increase around the said urban renewal acceleration district, while the court’s appraisal result did not reflect the land price increase. As such, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the land price increase after the designation of the said urban renewal acceleration district should be reflected in the amount of compensation through adequate time change, etc.

However, the court appraiser set the time of pricing on July 28, 2017.