(a) Business title - Business title: Urban planning facility project (Dpark creation project; hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Defendant

B. The ruling of expropriation made by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on November 28, 2016 - Land subject to expropriation: Each land (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”) indicated on the plaintiffs’ ownership (attached Form 1) located within the instant project zone (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”): The remaining land: Pyeongtaek-si E-si Forest Land, 349 square meters (off from F), 674 square meters of Pyeongtaek-si Forest and Forest (division in G; hereinafter referred to as “the remaining land of this case”) - The date of expropriation: January 12, 2017 - Compensation for losses (attached Form 2) - The details of compensation amount “the amount of adjudication of expropriation” are as indicated in

(However, each decision of dismissal was made on the claim for compensation of the remaining land of this case).

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on objection on May 25, 2017 - Compensation for losses: The details of compensation (attached Form 2) shall be as stated in the column for "amount of objection".

Results of each appraisal conducted by appraiser H (hereinafter referred to as "the results of each court appraisal conducted on November 24, 2017 and May 17, 2018) - The results of each court appraisal conducted on the basis of each appraisal conducted by appraiser H (hereinafter referred to as "the results of each court appraisal"): The results of each court appraisal conducted on the basis of each court appraisal conducted: The same shall apply

[The remaining land of this case is the amount equivalent to the ratio of shares of plaintiffs A and C among the value decline (67,357,000 won) and the value decline in relation to Pyeongtaek-si G] [the ground for recognition] fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the land number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of each court's appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The compensation determined by the plaintiffs' objection ruling is unfair because the compensation for each of the lands of this case is excessively low or the compensation for losses is not recognized as compensation for the depreciation of the remaining land. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the reasonable compensation for losses and the compensation for losses as determined by the ruling on the objection.

(The details of the plaintiffs' requests shall be as specified in attached Form 2.