1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff 6,724,615 won, Plaintiff B, C, D, and E respectively, and Plaintiff 2,81,978 won, among the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where the court rendered a judgment of the first instance as set forth below. Thus, it shall accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part II-e.

2) Paragraph 3 shall be advanced as follows:

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap 2, Eul 3, and Eul 1 to Eul 3 (including the number of branch offices AB), the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 23, 1975 under the name of Eul 6,975, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 20, 1976 with respect to Eul 4,678 square meters under the name of Eul 4,678. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on the same day; the above AC 4,678 square meters was completed on May 24, 1980 and the documents related to Gap 1 to Eul 97 were divided into the above AB 97 square meters and the documents related to Gap 97, and the above AE 97,50 square meters were divided into the above documents to the defendant on May 24, 1987, and the documents related to Gap 97,500 square meters were divided into the above land and the above documents to the defendant on May 9, 197, 2085.

3. First of all, the acquisition of public land by agreement is effective, if it is about 705 square meters prior to the above AE.