1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: Electric source development business (C business (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”); - Public notice of approval for execution of electric source development business (public notice of approval for execution of electric source development business): Defendant

B. The Central Land Expropriation’s ruling on February 9, 2017 - Use of the land as of February 9, 2017 : A 313/2,083 shares, Plaintiff B 1,770/2,083 shares) owned by the Plaintiffs, Namyang-si E-2,083 square meters of land for steel tower (hereinafter “instant land”) and 438 square meters of land for steel tower (electric transmission tower) and 438 square meters of land for 5 to 32 meters of land for 5 to 32 meters.

(hereinafter referred to as "the portion of the land to be used" - The date of commencement of use of the above portion of the land to be used: on April 4, 2017 - Compensation for use: Plaintiff A 1,412,781 (i.e., the steel tower site of KRW 800,696) (i.e., KRW 612,085), Plaintiff B 7,989,210 (i.e., the steel tower site of KRW 4,527,900) - An appraisal business entity: An appraisal company which has agreed to a resolution of a conflict and an appraisal company which has agreed to a resolution of a conflict:

D. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on May 26, 2016 - The content of the ruling: the Plaintiffs asserted that the entire land of this case, including the part subject to use, was expropriated and claimed for a different ruling; however, the Plaintiffs’ assertion was not accepted and the previous ruling on use was maintained without accepting the Plaintiffs’ assertion.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the assertion is that the defendant has a steel tower and transmission line on the land of this case, and the plaintiffs cannot use the land of this case at all, and since the purpose of purchasing the land for the purpose of using it as a family funeral site cannot be achieved, the defendant should expropriate the land of this case in whole.

Furthermore, the acceptance compensation is the same as the court appraiser F’s appraisal result (hereinafter the above appraiser’s appraisal as “court appraiser” and the above appraisal as “court appraisal”).