1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public announcement: Project approval and public announcement of project approval (H): Public announcement by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on August 7, 2015;

B. Compensation for losses for the adjudication of expropriation by the Defendant on September 7, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication of expropriation”): Each amount indicated in the column for “adjudication of expropriation” in the attached list of “land subject to expropriation” (hereinafter referred to as “land subject to expropriation”): The date of commencing expropriation: October 31, 2017: The claim for compensation for losses due to the expropriation of the remaining land (3,857 square meters of forest land and J forest land and 417 square meters of J forest land; hereinafter referred to as “ residual land”) or price decrease: The compensation for three grave periods on the land subject to expropriation is dismissed on the ground that the project operator did not undergo consultation on the compensation for losses: The compensation for the three grave periods on the land subject to expropriation is not possible and the adjudication is applied for due to the failure of consultation with the project operator.

(c).

The content of the Defendant’s ruling on April 26, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Objection”): Claim for compensation for the expropriation of the remaining land after increase in compensation or price decrease in the amount recorded in the attached list “this ruling” in the attached list: The claim for compensation for the remaining land after increase in compensation for the expropriated land is dismissed for the same reason as the ruling on expropriation on September 7, 2017. Compensation for the three-year period of land expropriated: The period of compensation for the three-year grave on the ground of expropriation was not established and the application for the ruling is filed.

(v) [based basis for recognition] unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 2 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs continued to hold consultations on the purchase of the remaining land and the compensation for damages for the decrease in the price of the remaining land, but the Defendant rejected the claim for expropriation of the remaining land and the claim for compensation for damages for the decrease in the price of the remaining land on the ground that no consultation was made with the project implementer. As such, the

The remaining land can not be used for the original purpose due to the expropriation of the land.