All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Name of the public housing project operator: The project operator of the public housing project: The defendant's public notice: D public notice of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on December 28, 2016;

(b) on October 10, 2019 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, individual land less than that to be expropriated by the ruling on expropriation shall be specified on a quarterly basis.

- Dong-gu E-176 square meters (Plaintiff A’s ownership) in Ilyang-dong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City 176 square meters - F- 354 square meters (Plaintiff A’s ownership) - B prior to G 160 square meters (each of the Plaintiffs 1/3 equity ownership) - P 2,711 square meters (Plaintiff A’s ownership of KRW 36/100, Plaintiff B 32/100 equity ownership) - Compensation for losses on December 4, 2019 - Plaintiff A: 2,228,814,730 won (=30,510,510,40 won for land of KRW 330,571,60) - 1/337,627,627,160, 1639/60 equity interest among G land of KRW 360,360,616/639/60 of equity interest among land of KRW 360,36160,369/606/60

(c) E-Land appraised and assessed as a result of the appraisal by this Court (hereinafter “the appraisal by the court”): 31,953,600 won - F land: 2,319,66,680 won for G land: - H land: 85,184,00 won for land: - 2,023,490,400 won for land: 2,023,023,490 won for land; 2,023,490 won for land; 331,953,60 won for land: the evidence of each of the evidence of this Court; 1,200 won for land A; 1, and 2 evidence of this Court (including each number for land with multiple numbers); the result of the appraisal by this Court; the purport of the entire entrustment of pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The compensation for the above land determined in the decision to expropriate the land E is too low to assess the value of the above land and does not reach a reasonable amount of compensation. Since the court appraiser assessed that without any grounds the conditions of access to the above land were lower than the comparison table, the result of the court's appraisal of the above land is also unlawful.

Since the conditions of access to the above land should be evaluated as either identical or little heat (0.98) with the comparative standard, the above land should accordingly be assessed.