1. The defendant's KRW 11,206,40 per annum against each of the plaintiffs and 5% per annum from July 16, 2016 to November 30, 2017.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business name (1) : The location and area of the C Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (2): The project implementer: the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D W, 60,982.60 square meters: the process of implementing the project (3): the Defendant (4)

B. Subject to the expropriation ruling (1) on May 27, 2016 by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal on expropriation: The statement is omitted, as the plaintiffs own 1/2 each of each of 1/2, as they were excluded from the application for the court appraisal because they had already been destroyed or lost (i.e., a building, etc. on the ground, but were excluded from the application for the court appraisal; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs' land"): The date of commencement of expropriation of 232,786,60 won (3): each of the plaintiffs' shares 232,786,60 won: July 15, 2016: An appraisal appraisal appraisal corporation in the form of a general appraisal

(c) Increase in the amount of compensation for losses by the Central Land Tribunal on January 29, 2017: Each of the plaintiffs' shares 235,252,800 won (2) : Appraisal and assessment: An appraisal and assessment corporation, a appraisal and assessment corporation at the date of the settlement of disputes, a appraisal and assessment corporation at the settlement of disputes [based], a evidence No. 1-1 through 4, a evidence No. 1-2, A-2 through 6-2, a evidence No. 7, a evidence No. 8, and a statement No. 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The major point of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the plaintiffs' land computed in the decision of acceptance of compensation for losses and the decision of compensation for losses is low.

The court's appraisal result also did not adopt a higher trading case even though there was a higher trading case, and the price of the building was set at a lower price than the land by arbitrarily excluding the building price in the compensation example adopted, and the appraisal value was calculated at a lower price than the appraisal value.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c) the result of the market appraisal by K of the fact of recognition;