1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant (1) 5,789,000 won against the plaintiff A and this.

1. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of adjudication [based on recognition], Gap 1, 2, 3, 4 (including provisional numbers), the result of the court appraisal, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

(a) Project approval and announcement (1) : A project approval and announcement (2) : A project operator announced on January 31, 2005 by Kimpo-si (3) : Defendant

B. Each land and remaining land owned by the plaintiffs as incorporated for the instant project are as follows.

On December 8, 2006, Plaintiff 11 Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, D EF No. 4,416 2,762 1,654 on December 2, 2006, on the date of the registration of the remaining land to be originally incorporated into the original land for the location of the owner, and on December 3, 2006, Plaintiff 11 Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 54 (hereinafter referred to as "GH-si 5,340 2,97 2,343 on December 29, 206, 19

Although the plaintiffs filed an application for the compensation of losses for each remaining land owned by the plaintiffs with the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal, the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal dismissed the application for the compensation of losses on December 18, 2013.

As a result of the appraisal commission of appraiser K in the first instance court, the remaining land fall short of the value fall short of 5,789,000 won, the remaining land fall short of 8,200,500 won, and the remaining land fall short of 6,850,800 won among the remaining land fall short of the land falling short of 5,789,000 won owned by the plaintiff in the second instance court.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) As the result of incorporation of each land owned by the plaintiffs for the project of this case, the value of the remaining land has decreased, the defendant should compensate for losses caused by the decline in the value of the remaining land.

(2) According to Article 74 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”), the Plaintiffs’ claim of this case was made even before the Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate the remaining land.

In addition, the first instance court's appraisal did not reflect the factors such as flood damage prevention and road improvement in the future according to the project of this case.