(a) progress of the project - The project implementation plan approved by the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City Public Notice on August 22, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Initial project implementation plan"), G of June 1, 2011, and H of the same Public Notice on October 24, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised project implementation plan") (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Public Notice"): the defendant:

B. Adjudication on expropriation by the local Land Expropriation Committee of Busan Metropolitan City: The land and obstacles owned by the plaintiffs within the rearrangement project zone are as indicated in the annexed Table “subject to expropriation” column.

- Commencement date of expropriation: December 8, 2014

Details of adjudication by the Central Land Tribunal - The amount of adjudication shall be as shown in the “amount of adjudication by objection” in the attached Table.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The officially announced price of the reference land, which is the basis for calculating the amount of compensation for the plaintiffs' assertion, shall be the officially announced price at the nearest point of the basic date of the authorization for the implementation of the redevelopment project of this case, and since the first implementation plan was null and void as of October 19, 2012, or since the authorization for the implementation of the project became null and void as of October 19, 2012, the first implementation plan shall not be deemed to be the base date of the officially announced price on January 1, 2007, which is near August 22, 2007, the first implementation plan was announced as of August 22, 2007, and shall not be deemed to be the time of the announcement of the authorization for the implementation of the project, which is close to October 24, 201

However, in the instant objection ruling, since the appraisal was conducted based on the officially announced land price as of January 1, 2007, the said appraisal was unlawful.

In addition, since the appraiser did not properly reflect the appraisal and sale cases, the land owned by the plaintiffs is low, so the appraiser is seeking the payment of the amount stated in the claim.

(b)a recognition;