1. The plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiffs are the Defendants.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: H district housing development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public notice given by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on February 6, 2009 - Business operator: the Defendants, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (in the case of the Seocheon-gu (hereinafter referred to as the “Seocheon-gu”), the J, and the land located in K, Defendant F Corporation, L, and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation shall compensate each);

B. The location, status, etc. of the land owned by the Plaintiffs are as follows: (a) see the attached drawing see the acquisition by consultation (hereinafter “instant acquisition by consultation”); N,O (registration conversion into P forest 3,653 square meters on March 16, 2007); (b) Q (registration number change to P forest 3,653 square meters); (c) S, T, U, V, W, X, and Y land shall be acquired through consultation - 9,541 square meters of Z forest - on March 8, 207 (hereinafter “land before division”) shall be 3,248 square meters of AA forest 9,541 square meters on March 23, 2010; (b) AB 144 square meters of AC forest ; (c) AE 42 square meters of AD forest - 6,096 square meters of forest - B50 square meters of forest and forest - - 301 square meters of forest and forest -2010,310.

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on January 21, 2016 (hereinafter “instant ruling”) - The Plaintiffs’ claim for expropriation of the remaining land of Jdong or dismissal of compensation for loss arising from the depreciation of the remaining land of Jdong in the instant case [based] fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-23 (which includes branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendants

A. The remaining parts of the plaintiffs' assertion of this case constitute a group of land owned by the plaintiffs with other land owned by them, and access was possible through the neighboring plaintiffs' co-owned land, etc., but it became a blind spot where entry is impossible due to the acquisition of the agreement in this case.