1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 16,637,600 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 2,954,700 for Plaintiff B; (c) KRW 13,553,500 for Plaintiff C; and (d) KRW 3,012 for Plaintiff D.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public announcement: P2 general project complex (8,9, and 10th (hereinafter “instant project”): The defendant; Q project operator who is public announcement of Jeollabuk-do on December 26, 2014;

B. The starting date of accepting the adjudication of expropriation (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”) made on January 16, 2018 by the Provincial Land Tribunal of Jeollabuk-do (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): On March 12, 2018: It is as shown in [Attachment 2] list (the indication of land by plaintiff) and [Attachment 3] list (the indication of obstacles by plaintiff).

(hereinafter collectively referred to as "each expropriation of this case"): Compensation for losses: The details of compensation (attached Form 1) shall be as stated in the "amount of appraisal of expropriation" column.

An appraisal corporation: ARR and a LABS

C. The Central Land Tribunal made an objection on August 23, 2018 (hereinafter “instant objection”): Compensation for losses (attached Form 1) shall be as stated in the “amount of appraisal of the objection” among the details of compensation.

Appraisal Corporation: The Bank of Bankruptcy and the Bank of Bankruptcy.

D. The appraisal result of the court's entrustment of appraisal: The appraisal result (attached Form 1) shall be as stated in the "court appraisal amount" column in the details of compensation.

Appraisal Corporation: The fact that there is no dispute over the L/W (based for recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the appraisal commission for appraiser W by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In the plaintiffs' assertion of this case and the ruling of acceptance of this case, compensation for each of the acceptance objects of this case owned by the plaintiffs does not amount to compensation that is reasonably calculated. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between reasonable compensation and compensation for losses under the ruling of acceptance of this case and the ruling of objection.

B. In a lawsuit concerning an increase or decrease of one compensation, each appraisal agency’s appraisal and the court appraiser’s appraisal and assessment based on which the objection was raised are not unlawful in the assessment methods, and the remaining factors except for the comparison of individual factors.