1. The Defendant: 61,984,500 won to Plaintiff A; 21,478,500 won to Plaintiff B; 38,657,500 won to Plaintiff C; and 38,657,500 won to Plaintiff D, E, and F.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) project approval and publication - G project approval and publication - G project (hereinafter “instant project”) - H project operator announced on October 21, 2013 - Project operator: Defendant

B. Adjudication on expropriation on October 31, 2014 (hereinafter “adjudication on expropriation”) 1 to 44. - The Plaintiff’s land subject to expropriation and compensation (hereinafter “each land of this case”), land category / practical use, unit price (won) 1 to 524,505, 259,00 J. / 61 524,500 / 664,500 / 7400 / 524,647,50 / 6400 / 647,500 / 647,50 / 6400 / 500 / 6400 / 50 860,500 / 860,180, 133,250 B/500 / 200 / 50450,57 /40500 /47,57 /405 /40002.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the standard of comparison selected by the plaintiffs' assertion, appraisal and court appraisal show a significant difference between their form and location, elevation, use, and relationship with neighboring roads, it is erroneous in the adjudication and court appraisal by selecting a comparison standard, and by failing to properly apply the surrounding market prices and transaction cases, it was erroneous in the excessively underassessment of the appraised value of each land of this case.

Each of the instant lands was changed to a natural green area in a green production area as of October 10, 2013 by the public notice of the decision on the urban management plan of the Simsan-do (P) on March 10, 2013, the adjudication, appraisal and court appraisal are illegal as of the production green area.

B. Relevant statutes attached to relevant laws and regulations.