1. The defendant shall be KRW 18,223,90 to the plaintiff A, KRW 11,389,370 to the plaintiff B, and KRW 6,834,530 to the plaintiff C and each of the above amounts.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Road Projects (D) - E publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on June 2, 2014

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation made on August 25, 2016 - Subject to expropriation: 7 square meters of forest land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter referred to as “1 land in this case”) and 2,976 square meters of G forest land (hereinafter referred to as “2 land in this case”) - With respect to each of the instant land, Plaintiff A owns 1/2 shares, Plaintiff B owns 38045/121750 shares, and Plaintiff C owns 22830/121750 shares, respectively. - The date of the commencement of expropriation begins: October 18, 2016 - Compensation for losses following the expropriation ruling: the following table:

Plaintiff

A Plaintiff B, 150,380 won 90,240 won for the land 1 of this case, KRW 224,316,00 for the land 2 of this case, KRW 140,190,590 for 84,125,400 for the land 1 of this case

C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on January 19, 2017, Plaintiff A C, Plaintiff C, KRW 226,176,80,800, KRW 150,490,300, KRW 150,300, KRW 141,353,030, KRW 84,822,960, the sum of KRW 226,416,80, KRW 1416,503,520, KRW 84,913,260, KRW 260, KRW 226,416,80, KRW 800, KRW 1416,50, KRW 84,913, and KRW 260 following the said ruling: The

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-4, 5, and 2-1, 8, 9, 10, and 3-1, 8, 9, and 10-1, 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The land category in the public register of each of the instant lands asserted by the Plaintiffs is “forest” or “water sources, etc.” and the land actually used as “water sources, etc.”

Since the amount of compensation for land should be calculated in accordance with the actual state of use, each of the instant lands must be assessed as “water sources, etc.” and compensated.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the result of appraisal according to the court appraisal that evaluated each of the lands of this case as "water sources, etc." and the compensation for losses under this ruling.

In the complaint of this case, the plaintiff B stated that "specific arguments and verification methods will be submitted later in writing" in relation to the compensation for livestock loss.