1. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The grounds alleged by the Plaintiffs in the first instance court are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the first instance court’s judgment rejecting the Plaintiffs’ claims is justified even if examining the submitted evidence together with the Plaintiffs’ assertion.

Therefore, the reasoning for the statement in this case is that the court of first instance is "the first instance court" as "the first instance court" as "the second instance court" as "the second instance court" as "the second instance court" as "(C)", "(C)(1) of the second part as "(d)", "(d) of the first part as "(e)", "this court" of the first part as "the fourth part as "the first instance court", "the fourth part as "the first part", "the first part as "the opening and repair" of the fourth part as "the 8th part as "the opening and repair", "the opening and repair" of the first part as "the 15th part as "the 9th part as "the 11th part as "the 11th part as "the 2nd part as "the second part as "the second part as "the second part", "the second part as "the second part as "the second part as to the allegations emphasized by the plaintiffs in the first part as "the second part as to the plaintiff's appeal."

2. Additional Determination

A. The plaintiffs committed an error in violation of Article 14(2)1 of the Rules on the Appraisal and Evaluation, which provides for the adequate appraisal amount to be calculated through comparison with other land by selecting a standard land for comparison with land owned by the plaintiff C (hereinafter "land subject to appraisal"), in the court appraisal, and also violates Article 14(2)1 of the Rules on the Appraisal and Evaluation, which provides that the appropriate appraisal amount shall be calculated through comparison with the land owned by the plaintiff C.