1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1.88,565, and KRW 1.78,565, and KRW 1.78,754,665, respectively, to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 1.78,754,665, respectively.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business name: Public notice 1) Project name: Defendant: F 3 project operator announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on June 5, 2012: Defendant;

B. The subject of accommodation and the subject of accommodation: The land was divided in the process of implementing the instant project on December 2, 2013 and was part of the land (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) that was divided in the process of implementing the instant project (hereinafter “each of the instant land”). The land was divided into the following: (a) Nam-si, Seoyang-si, G-si, 98 square meters; (b) 298 square meters in H miscellaneous land; (c) 231 square meters in the Gu before J; (d) 2,013 square meters in the JJ; (e)

2) Remaining land: M forest land 54,285 square meters (hereinafter “the remaining land of this case”)

C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered the first and second expropriation ruling and the order of its adjudication on the expropriation (N in Nam-si) owner of the object of expropriation (N in Nam-si), 1 G obstacles to the land subject to the adjudication on the expropriation on October 23, 2014, G 288,560,700, and 196, 113,8003 I " 196, 113,800 3 I" 71, 171, 100 4 JJ 634,815,500 on January 22, 2015, 2000 each of the plaintiffs 439,493, 7906K 456, 258, 207 L20, 751, 314, and 314 (hereinafter referred to as "land subject to each of the instant cases") and each of the instant land subject to the adjudication on expropriation.

(2) As to the remaining land of this case, the expropriation claim and the price compensation claim for the remaining land of this case were dismissed. 2) An appraisal corporation: O and P, Q and R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication appraiser”), and Q and R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication”) are deemed to have been used as an orchard through an illegal alteration of form and quality. Accordingly, the amount of appraisal for each land of this case and obstacles was evaluated as a forest not an orchard, and accordingly, the amount of adjudication for each land of this case and obstacles was indicated below.

(ii) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1 to 6, 4, 5-1 to 4, 10, 12-12-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 portion of the instant orchard was used as the orchard site since 1966.