2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Defendant is a party to the urban environment rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) with respect to the area of 16,857 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul E, Seoul.

(2) The Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) is a company that registered the business of leasing real estate on November 1, 2003, with the location of the place of business as the Seoul Mapo-gu ground building located within the instant project area, and the Plaintiff B is a Seoul Mapo-gu G ground building located within the instant project area, the opening date of the business, and the location of the place of business. The Plaintiff C is a person who registered the business of leasing each real estate on July 12, 2003 and the location of the place of business as the Seoul Mapo-gu H ground building (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant buildings”) located within the instant project area.

B. (1) On July 26, 2012, there was an announcement of the authorization to implement the instant project, but the Plaintiffs were classified as cash liquidation pursuant to Article 47(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013) because all of the Plaintiffs did not apply for parcelling-out with respect to the instant project. (2) The Defendant agreed with the Plaintiffs to acquire each of the instant buildings, but filed an application for expropriation with the Seoul Regional Land Tribunal pursuant to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) upon failure to reach agreement, and the Seoul Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on February 26, 2016 on expropriation of each of the instant buildings on April 15, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant acceptance ruling”). 3 Plaintiffs filed an objection to the said acceptance ruling with the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the ground that the instant acceptance ruling was insufficient to compensate for losses as prescribed by the said expropriation ruling.