1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On October 23, 2012, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced on July 22, 2016, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s announcement of project approval and announcement: The Plaintiffs, who were partially incorporated into the land owned by the Plaintiffs, owned 1/5 shares of each of the 7,724 square meters of Jan Forest and Forest (hereinafter referred to as “land parcel number”) in Gwangju City. However, some of the said land was divided into 1,818 square meters of Jan Forest and Forest, 945 square meters of K forest and forest, and 362 square meters of Lan Forest and Forest.

Among them, K forest and L forest were incorporated into the instant project (hereinafter “instant incorporated land”), and the remaining I forest and 4,599 square meters and J forest and J forest and J forest and 1,818 square meters (hereinafter “instant remaining land”) were not incorporated into the instant project but left.

The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 31, 2016 with respect to the land incorporated into the instant land on November 16, 2016 due to land expropriation.

In September 29, 2016, the Central Land Expropriation Committee filed a claim for expropriation of the remaining land of this case, but the Central Land Expropriation Committee dismissed the said claim on the ground that “The area of the remaining land of this case is larger, the land which is the blind land, and it cannot be deemed significantly difficult to use it as forest for the original purpose due to this project.”

On March 23, 2017, the Central Land Expropriation Committee filed an objection against the said adjudication of acceptance, asserting that the Plaintiffs set up and set up access roads to the remaining land of this case and accept the remaining land of this case.

However, the Central Land Tribunal, however, states that “the construction of access roads due to this case’s remaining land is not necessary due to this case’s public works, and it is not possible to open an access road to the expressway in the direction of this case’s public works,” and on the same grounds as the above written adjudication of expropriation.”