(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project approval and public announcement - Housing redevelopment improvement project for a PFiscal zone - Project implementer: Defendant - Public announcement of project approval: Qu in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 20, 2013;

B. On August 25, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit immediately without going through the procedure of the Central Land Expropriation Committee’s objection ruling.

- Subject to confinement: Each entry of the items of “subject matter of confinement” in the attached list.

(hereinafter referred to as “objects subject to expropriation of this case”). The acceptance ruling was made with respect to each obstacle owned by Plaintiffs B, C, D, and E, but the above Plaintiffs withdrawn the claim for increase of compensation for each obstacle owned by the above Plaintiffs through the application for change of the purport of the claim of this case and the cause of the claim. Thus, the above Plaintiffs need not look at each obstacle owned by the above Plaintiffs.

Although there was a ruling against the plaintiffs to pay late payment additional charges under Article 30 (3) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor, the plaintiffs do not request the increase of additional charges for delay. Thus, the above decision should be examined only on the objects of expropriation of this case.

- Date of commencement of expropriation: - Compensation for losses on October 20, 2017: as described in the separate list of items of "compensation for expropriation".

- An appraisal corporation: A certified public appraisal corporation in the Dispute Resolution, a certified public appraisal corporation in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. [Grounds for Recognition], the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 to 3 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's 1 and the purport of the whole

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs’ adjudication of expropriation for the subject-matter of the instant case cannot be deemed a legitimate compensation amount. Thus, the court’s appraisal sought additional compensation amount corresponding to the difference between the legitimate compensation amount and the compensation amount due to the court’s appraisal.

, however, the court's appraisal.