1. The defendant shall pay 4,789,840 won to each of the plaintiffs and 12% per annum from May 16, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

1. Details of ruling;

A. Business Approval and Public Notice - Business Name: C (hereinafter “instant project”): A project operator is indicated in the written adjudication on Defendant’s use of land as “the Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor” but the project operator refers to the State, local government, and other public organizations, such as the State or local government, which are the subject of the rights and obligations to acquire land ownership, etc. through adjudication and to compensate landowners or persons concerned for losses incurred thereby (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu774, Feb. 11, 1992; 92Nu1572, May 25, 1993). The project operator shall be deemed to be the “ Incheon Metropolitan City”, which is not the head of Incheon Metropolitan City, which is a mere administrative agency.

- Public announcement: D Public Notice of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on April 30, 2014

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on the use of land as of July 13, 2017 – the unit surface right of the part corresponding to “-25.10m-7.46m- below the ground of 295m-5m- below 295m-46m- below the ground of 295m-25m-10m-7.46m- below (hereinafter “instant underground part”) among the land subject to use (hereinafter “instant land”): The starting date of use: the starting date of use - the opening date of use: September 5, 2017 - the Plaintiffs’ compensation amounting to KRW 54,734,940 [based on recognition]; the Plaintiffs’ assertion that there is no dispute; Gap’s evidence 1 through 7; Eul’s evidence 1 through 7; the same shall apply hereinafter); the purport of the entire pleadings; and the purport

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the Plaintiffs planned the construction of a high-rise building on the instant land.

As a result of the instant project, an underground space from 25.10m to 7.46m is used by the Defendant, which is the underground part of the instant land. As a result, the Plaintiffs are almost unable to use the underground floor, making it virtually impossible to construct a high-rise building, thereby incurring enormous property loss.

The ruling of the use of this case was unfair since it set compensation for losses without considering this point.

Therefore, above.