1. The plaintiffs' action against the Central Land Expropriation Committee shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and the name of the public announcement: C Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): Public announcement of project implementation authorization for Defendant Corporation: D public announcement of project implementation authorization on December 29, 2015;

B. The Defendant Committee rendered a ruling of expropriation on September 7, 2017 by the Defendant Committee (hereinafter “instant land to be expropriated”) on September 7, 2017, as indicated in the Plaintiff B’s list, as incorporated in the instant project area, as indicated in the table (e) below (hereinafter “instant land to be expropriated”).

(1) On October 31, 2017, the date of commencement of expropriation was set as of October 31, 2017 and the adjudication was made on the acceptance of the said date (hereinafter “instant adjudication on expropriation”).

(2) In the instant ruling on expropriation, the Plaintiffs asserted that, among the 195,166§³ of rivers E, 196 square meters (F; hereinafter “the first river site in this case”) and E river 195,166 square meters (G; hereinafter “the second river site in this case”); and 1,685 square meters of land (H; hereinafter “the third river site in this case”; and 1,685 square meters of land (hereinafter “H; hereinafter “the third river site in this case”) among the 195,16 square meters of land in the Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, the Gyeong-gun, the Gyeongbuk-gun, the Plaintiff possessed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff should compensate for the development expenses for each river site in this case; however, the Defendant Committee did not accept the aforementioned assertion on the grounds that the Plaintiffs obtained permission to change the form and quality of the river site in this case.

C. The Plaintiffs, as of December 21, 2018, filed an objection against the instant ruling of expropriation. However, the Defendant Commission dismissed the Plaintiffs’ assertion of compensation for the costs of reclamation on December 21, 2018 on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not prove that they obtained permission to change the form and quality of the instant river site or permission to reclaim the land for each of the instant river sites, ② the Plaintiff’s assertion of increase in compensation for damages on the ground that the compensation for the instant land to be expropriated is adequate.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant objection”) D.

The defendant Corporation deposited the compensation for the plaintiff B.