1. The defendant's 8,538,00 won to the plaintiff A, 8,538,000 won to the plaintiff B, and 10,100,000 won to the plaintiff C, respectively.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Project name: 1) Project implementer: Public announcement of project implementation authorization for Defendant 3: Public announcement of project implementation authorization on April 26, 2012; Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement E;

B. On April 22, 2016, the expropriation date of the local Land Tribunal of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City: The object of expropriation on June 10, 2016: each land and its ground obstacles (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) indicated in the attached appraisal report owned by the Plaintiffs in the Seoul Songpa-gu project area: 4) An appraisal corporation: an appraisal corporation that is subject to the imposition of appraisal report and the appraisal corporation that is the same as each indicated in the column for the amount of compensation for expropriation in the attached appraisal report: the appraisal corporation that is subject to the imposition of appraisal report and the appraisal corporation that is the same (hereinafter “appraisals of expropriation”) and the appraisal result; hereinafter “the result of the appraisal of expropriation report”).

C. Compensation for the Central Land Tribunal’s objection No. 19, Jan. 19, 2017: 2 as stated in the column for the amount of compensation for objection as a result of the attached Table of the appraisal: An appraisal corporation: three appraisal corporations; a corporation; a corporation; a corporation; a corporation; (b) an appraisal corporation; (c) the result of the appraisal; (d) “the result of the appraisal of an objection”; and (e) the appraisers for the expropriation and the appraisers for the objection; and (c) the said appraisers for the adjudication and appraisers for the adjudication

(d) Results of the appraiser F’s appraisal: Each entry in the column for the amount of the court’s appraisal on the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “court appraiser,” and the result of the appraisal hereinafter referred to as the “based ground for recognition”) is the same as that in the annexed Table No. 1, and there is no dispute about the evidence No. 1-4, 5, 6, and 5-4, 5, 6, 5-2, 4, and 5-2, 4, and 5-2, and 4, and 5-2

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since the plaintiffs' alleged appraisers assessed excessively lower the value of each real estate of this case and assessed the under-paid compensation, the defendant should pay the difference between the reasonable compensation according to the court's appraisal result and the compensation according to the appraisal result of this ruling to the plaintiffs.

(b) relevant legislation;