1. The Defendant: 11,675,400 won to Plaintiff A; 45,413,200 won to Plaintiff B; 70,492,950 won to Plaintiff C; and 36,203 to Plaintiff D.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business title: E urban development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public notice of project implementation authorization: F-project implementer public notice of Kimpo-si on November 11, 2013 - Project implementer: Defendant

B. The ruling of expropriation by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on April 20, 2015 - Land subject to expropriation: Land indicated in the column for "land subject to expropriation" as shown in the attached Table (hereinafter "each land of this case"): Compensation: The amount indicated in the attached Table for each land of this case - The date of commencement of expropriation: June 4, 2015.

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on December 17, 2015 - Compensation for losses: The amount indicated in the column for "compensation for objection" in the attached Table of the land in this case.

D. Results of the court appraisal - Results of the entrustment of appraisal to G on May 10, 2017 (hereinafter “the result of the first court appraisal”): The amount indicated in the “the result of the first court appraisal” in the attached Table on each of the instant lands - the result of the second court appraisal entrustment to H on November 14, 2019 (hereinafter “the result of the second court appraisal”): The amount indicated in the “the result of the second court appraisal” in the attached Table on the land of Kimpo-si among the instant lands of this case (based on the premise that the I land does not fall under a de facto private road), the amount indicated in the “amount of the second court appraisal” in the attached Table on the land of this case (based on the premise that the I land does not fall under a de facto private road) / [the grounds for recognition] the amount indicated in each of subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including numbers), the result of appraisal to G and H

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' reasonable compensation for the remaining lands except for I land is the result of the first court's appraisal. It is the result of the second court's appraisal that assessed the compensation amount on the premise that the legitimate compensation for I land among each of the instant lands does not constitute a site of private roads.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the reasonable compensation for each of the lands of this case and the compensation for objection.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

(c).