2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiffs are companies engaged in CATV broadcasting business, business related to super-high speed information and communications networks, business leasing telecommunications line facilities, etc.

B. On May 30, 2008, the Defendant: (a) removed electric wires and communication lines installed in the air from the southwest to the south cycle of the southwest-dong, Gangnam-gu, to remove the electric wires and communication lines installed in the air at approximately 5.22 km from the southwest to the south cycle; and (b) concluded the Agreement and the Agreement on the Construction of Telecommunicationsline Intersection and the Agreement on the Construction of Telecommunicationsline with the Plaintiffs on May 30, 2008 in the course of the implementation plan for the undergroundization of electric wires and the creation of ground distance on the ground.

According to the above letter of agreement, the defendant carried out excavation and restoration works at his own expense (the supervising road, the entrance road, and the entrance road), and the plaintiffs, at his own expense until the lawsuit of Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap10865 becomes final and conclusive, shall undertake the construction of the official conduits and the relocation of the tracks (Article 8), and the plaintiffs, at the defendant's expense, shall conduct the official conduits excavation and restoration works (the supervising road, the entrance road, the entrance road), the costs of the official conduits and the ratio of the burden to be borne by the plaintiffs, and other rights and obligations related thereto are ultimately followed by the final judgment in the lawsuit of 208Gahap10865, etc.

(Article 9). (c)

In accordance with the above written agreement, the defendant paid construction cost of KRW 4,220,637,060, and the plaintiffs are as follows.

In this subsection, the cost of construction for the plaintiff's household expense incurred in the same amount as the description in the column for the construction cost (total of KRW 2,930,576,363) was disbursed.

After the above 208Gahap10865 case became final and conclusive, the Defendant repaid the construction cost to the Plaintiffs according to the above agreement, and on October 1, 2014, Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Public Property Act”).