1. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The grounds alleged by the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance are not different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is recognized as legitimate in the judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted only part of the plaintiffs' claims, even if the plaintiffs' statements in Gap evidence Nos. 16 through 18 (including paper numbers) and the fact-finding inquiry report to the court appraiser in the court of first instance submitted additionally by the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning for this case is that the court in this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. The "H" of Nos. 3, 10 as "AB", the "2,392.5" of No. 4, the "No. 5, the "No. 312.5", the "No. 3,9, 9, 8, 9, 10, 17, 13, 8, 15, 2, 3, 16, and 14 as "the first instance court", "No. 17, 3, and 4" as "the first instance court", and the "No. 9, 8," the "No. 11, 100," the "No. 5, the plaintiff selected the land of this case as "No. 1,392.5," and the "No. 2,392,5," the "No. 17, and the "No. 10, the land of this case is divided.

However, even if the land was divided due to the implementation of public works, the appraisal result selected as a site based on the actual use status of each land of this case, which has already been successively divided from April 7, 1994 to April 8, 2008, prior to the implementation of the project of this case, cannot be deemed to be unfair.