(a) Authorization and announcement for project implementation - Business name: Public housing construction projects (R district public housing construction projects): Public announcement of authorization for project implementation: S publicly announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on December 2, 2014 - Project implementer:

B. Adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on December 17, 2015 - Subject to expropriation: Attached Form 1, which is owned by the Plaintiffs, each land indicated in the “location, main number, duplicate, area, shares, and land category” (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “each of the instant land”) - The date of commencement of expropriation: February 11, 2016 - Compensation: The amount of money indicated in the “amount of adjudication on expropriation” among the details of compensation as shown in Attached Form 1.

- An appraisal corporation: A certified public appraisal corporation and a national appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”)

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on September 29, 2016 - Contents of the ruling: The Plaintiffs’ compensation for losses as indicated in attached Form 1 1 - Each increase - An appraisal corporation: a new appraisal corporation in the future, a stock company, and an appraisal corporation in the date of the appraisal (hereinafter “appraisal”)

D. The result of the commission of appraisal to the appraiser T (U appraiser's office) by this Court (hereinafter "court appraisal") - Compensation for losses: Attached 2. The compensation amount is as stated in the column of "court appraisal amount" in the annexed Form 2.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of this court's entrustment to appraiser T, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The compensation for losses for each of the lands of this case owned by the plaintiffs above except plaintiffs 1 F is too low compared to the value of each of the lands of this case and thus does not reach a reasonable compensation. Thus, the defendant is the legitimate compensation for each of the lands of this case.