1. The defendant,

A. Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, K, L, M, M,O, P, Q, R, and S respectively.

The project name and the name of the public announcement of the approval and the result of the appraisal of the ruling: The project implementer publicly announced V ( March 10, 2016) at the time of broad-scale public announcement of the approval of the project for the redevelopment and rearrangement of housing in the U.S. (the second project; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): The land specified in the attached Table 3 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”) and obstacles (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant obstacles”) in each of the instant land and obstacles (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant objects of expropriation”). The commencement date of expropriation: Compensation for losses on April 14, 2018: The amount specified in the attached Table 1 [Attachment 1] column for the amount of adjudication of expropriation.

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on October 25, 2018 on compensation for losses: Attached Table 1 [Attachment 1] shall be as follows.

As a result of the appraisal (Evidence No. 6): Attached Table 2 [Attachment 2] on each object of confinement in this case by the court appraiser W in the Suwon District Court 2018 Ada37455, the appraisal content of each object of confinement in this case is as shown in the column of the court appraisal value.

(hereinafter the above appraisal result is determined to be too low from the amount of compensation for each expropriation object of this case, since there is no dispute about the above appraisal result / [applicable to the court appraisal], Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 9, the whole purport of the pleading, the plaintiffs' assertion of increase in compensation for losses, and the ruling of acceptance of compensation for losses, which are the purport of each expropriation object of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of compensation for each expropriation object of this case as stated in attached Table 2 [Attachment 2], which is the difference between the court appraisal amount and the compensation for objection.

The plaintiff E and I who lost their base of livelihood because they did not separately establish and implement relocation measures while accommodating the buildings used by the plaintiffs for residential purposes for the implementation of the project in this case.