1. The plaintiffs' action against the Central Land Expropriation Committee and the action against the defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation on March 2013.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Approval and publication of the project implementation plan, and formulation and publication of a compensation plan; 1) Housing site development project (A Housing Site Development Project (22th; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”);

2) The project implementer: The public notice of the project implementer: on August 5, 2008, B4) the establishment and public notice of the compensation plan: on February 2009.

B. As to the Plaintiffs’ assertion on livestock compensation, the Central Land Expropriation Committee’s adjudication on expropriation on November 21, 2013 (hereinafter “instant adjudication on expropriation”) 1), each of the Plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet 3(1) against which dismissal is dismissed (hereinafter “Plaintiff C, etc.”) due to the following reasons.

) The same list “location” is the land located in the development restriction zone and each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet 4(2) that does not obtain permission, etc. to install livestock farming facilities, etc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff D, etc.”) as the land is located in the development restriction zone.

() The same list “location” is confirmed to have been raised as a Class-I exclusive residential area. However, in a residential area, the former Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Act No. 12516, Mar. 24, 2014; hereinafter “former Livestock Excreta Act”) and the Ordinance on Areas subject to Restriction of Livestock Raising in Seongbuk-si (amended by Ordinance No. 3002, Jun. 20, 2016; hereinafter “former Ordinance of Seongbuk-si”).

Plaintiff E ( Salt 28 E, Sungnam-si F), Plaintiff G ( Salt 27 E, and Sungnam-si H) (hereinafter “Plaintiff E, etc.”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff E, etc.”) that the raising of dogs, salt, chickens, etc. is prohibited.

(2) With respect to the claim that Plaintiff 1 through 5, 7, 10 through 19, 21 through 37, 39, 40, 41, and 43 through 49, there is no objective evidence that Plaintiff 1 through 5, 7, 10 through 19, 21 through 37, 39, 40, 41, and 49 were supplied for the supply of a site for livelihood countermeasures: Matters concerning the supply of a site for livelihood countermeasures by the project operator pursuant to the relevant provisions are to be