(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project name: R Zone redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Defendant - Public announcement on May 7, 2015

B. Decision on expropriation made on October 28, 2016 by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City: The date of expropriation: December 16, 2016 - Attached Table owned by the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff Q (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”): The object of expropriation / [Attachment Table] owned by each land (hereinafter “each land of this case”) and obstacles (hereinafter “each obstacles of this case”) indicated on “subject matter of expropriation” - Compensation: The amount indicated in the attached Table / [Attachment Table] - The amount indicated on “compensation for expropriation” - the central appraisal appraisal corporation, the Sam Chang Chang Corporation (hereinafter “appraisal”) (hereinafter “adjudication,” and the result of the appraisal is referred to as “appraisal”).

C. On November 25, 2016, the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Metropolitan City: The date of expropriation - Plaintiff Q sought a business compensation, etc. for the business in the trade name “U” from the land building in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; however, the Seoul Metropolitan City Land Tribunal decided to accept the Plaintiff’s business compensation claim on the ground that the use on the building ledger cannot be deemed as a legitimate business place, and that the above Plaintiff’s business operation cannot be deemed as a house, and that it does not have a business registration certificate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The appraisal of the judgment on the claims for compensation for losses by the plaintiff Gap et al. is erroneous in the appraisal of each land and obstacles of this case, and the amount of compensation is excessively low. Thus, the defendant must pay the difference between the plaintiff Gap et al. and the amount of compensation. 2) The plaintiff Q Q Q.