1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for the finding of this case by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the court added the facts that there is no dispute (based on recognition; (b) Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings in the second sentence following the second sentence of the first instance judgment; (c) each of the "this court" in the fourth and fourth sentence of the fourth sentence shall be deemed to be "the first instance court"; (d) "19 through 25" in the fifth and fourth sentence shall be deemed to be "19,24"; (d) "this court" in the fourth sentence and fourth sentence of the second sentence shall be deemed to be "the first instance court"; (d) "N witnesses" in the fourth sentence shall be deemed to be "N witnesses of the first instance court"; (e) the first sentence shall be deemed to be "the first instance court"; (e) the first sentence through 10 pages Nos. 18 through 12; and (e) the second through 25 of the second sentence and fourth through 18 of the second sentence, the second sentence.

2. From 10 pages 18 to 12, the new portion of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows:

Considering the following facts and circumstances as to the instant case in light of the health stand, Gap 5 through 9, 12, 18, 20 evidence, Eul 3, 5 through 16, 18 through 22, and the overall purport of the pleadings, and the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to evaluate the instant land as the site for a group of lands with the instant land 20 through 23, 25, and the instant land as the site for a group of lands in a social, economic, and administrative aspect, and in a reasonable and value formation perspective. Thus, it is reasonable to evaluate it as the site for the instant land 20 through 23, 25, and the instant land as the site for a group of lands.

The defendant asserts that the land of this case 24 was designated as a development restriction zone in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, including the land of this case 24, and that since the land of this case 24 was an illegal form and quality change to the site form and quality without permission after its designation, it should not be viewed as a complex.

However, illegal.