1. Of the instant lawsuit filed by Plaintiff E, the part of the claim against L/C L/W 144 square meters and the instant lawsuit filed by Plaintiff K.

1. Details of ruling;

A. On March 28, 2008, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced NN on the “Public-Private Partnership Project” (hereinafter “Public-Private Partnership Project”) (hereinafter “Public-Private Partnership Project”), and publicly announced on June 26, 2009, the project implementer designated the project implementer as the defendant, and publicly announced the detailed list of land to be incorporated into the instant project as P on June 26, 2009.

B. The Plaintiffs owned each land (hereinafter “instant land”) indicated in the separate sheet of compensation details (hereinafter “compensation details sheet”) on Q and R, Q and R, respectively, in the separate sheet of compensation details (hereinafter “compensation details sheet”). However, according to the public notice of land tax item, the part of the land included in the compensation details list of the instant land and the entry in the lot number and size column (hereinafter “instant incorporated land”) was included in the instant project.

C. After completing the procedure for consultation on compensation for the public land to be incorporated into the Defendant and the instant land, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Republic of Korea on the date indicated on the date of the registration of acquisition through consultation or the date of adjudication on expropriation

(However, for each land owned by the Plaintiff and each land owned by Plaintiff D, the expropriation date of which was decided, the ownership transfer registration was made in the Republic of Korea on January 9, 2013 and July 7, 2010, respectively).

A national expressway construction project under the instant project was completed on March 25, 2013 after completion of construction works, and was opened on March 28, 2013.

E. On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a claim against the Defendant for compensation on the ground that there was a decrease in the price with respect to each land indicated in the column for the remaining land lot number and size among the compensation details table, which are the parts not incorporated as above, among the instant land, (hereinafter “instant remaining land”). However, the Plaintiffs filed a claim for compensation on the ground that there was a decrease in the price with respect to the remaining land among the remaining land of Plaintiff E and the remaining land of Plaintiff K, 144 square meters, and 773 square meters

F. The Defendant’s refusal of the above compensatory consultation, and the Plaintiffs, on January 2014.