1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice (hereinafter “instant project”): Railroad construction projects [the Central Line - Jeju Lottery Construction Projects (the 1st Main City)] - The project operator announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on July 28, 201, No. 2011-394, and July 23, 2012, Article 2012-432 of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced on July 23, 201: Defendant:

B. The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation by July 18, 2013 - The date of expropriation: The Korea Appraisal Board, the Korea Appraisal Board, and the Gyeongil Appraisal Board (hereinafter “Adjudication Appraisal Board,” and the result of said appraisal are referred to as “appraisal”) - Land subject to expropriation and compensation for losses: The following table:

(2) The Plaintiff-owned land was divided into 1,231 square meters and divided into 1,231 square meters and divided into 1,231 square meters and 272 square meters and divided into 138,893,730 square meters and 702 square meters in each of 138,50,505,000 square meters and divided into 185 square meters and 41,747,100 square meters in each of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff-owned land, and 3,601,30 square meters in each of the instant land compensation land A, the land compensation for which divided divided into 1,231 square meters and 1,231 square meters in each of the instant land, and each of the instant land compensation for land owned by the Plaintiff-owned land was divided into 138,893,730 square meters in each of the instant land, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff-owned land and the Plaintiff-owned land.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiffs filed a claim to increase compensation for land expropriation acquired each of the instant land in order to operate a golf range and completed civil engineering works with permission to develop a golf range, each of the instant land exceeds the value as a mere miscellaneous land, an appraiser’s judgment is unreasonable without appropriately reflecting such increase in land price in the unit price for compensation.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff A and B, respectively, and KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff C with the difference between the amount of compensation determined by the reasonable compensation and the appraisal.

B. The plaintiff C’s remaining land value decline.