1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the plaintiffs' assertion in the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiffs’ result of the appraisal by the court appraiser of the first instance trial (hereinafter “the result of the appraisal by the court appraisal by the court appraiser of the first instance trial”) applied the criteria under Article 38-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24544, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”), and calculated the compensation amount of each of the instant lands by adopting the standard published land price as of January 1, 2008 pursuant to Article 70(5) of the Land Compensation Act, by deeming that “the price has changed due to the announcement or public announcement of the plan or implementation of the public works.”

However, in the case of the project of this case, since the plan was publicly announced and publicly announced before the new application of Article 38-2 of the former Enforcement Decree, Article 38-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree cannot be applied in assessing each of the land of this case.

Therefore, the appraisal result of the first instance court that calculated the compensation amount of each land of this case by adopting the standard publicly announced land price as of January 1, 2008 by applying the standard under Article 38-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree is illegal, and the judgment of the first instance court that applied such appraisal result is also illegal.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances, the standard published land price as of January 1, 2008 pursuant to Article 70(5) of the Land Compensation Act can be applied to the calculation of the fair compensation price of each land of this case, in light of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, which are recognized as a whole, and since the standard published land price as of January 1, 2008 was adopted, the result of the first instance court appraisal, which calculated the compensation price of each land of this case, cannot be deemed unlawful. Thus, the first instance court applying this.