1. On April 17, 2014, the Defendant stated each amount and each of the amount stated in the separate sheet in the separate sheet to the Plaintiffs.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: W redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement project”): Defendant - Project implementer: Public notice of project implementation authorization: X of Busan Metropolitan City in Maritime Affairs and Daegu on May 16, 2012; public notice YY on October 31, 2012; public notice ZZ on November 6, 2013; and AAAA on December 25, 2013;

(b) The adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Busan Metropolitan City on March 3, 2014, the adjudication of objection by the Central Land Tribunal of December 18, 2014, and the entrustment of appraisal by this court - The starting date of expropriation: April 16, 2014 - Land, buildings, etc. owned by the plaintiffs within the instant rearrangement project zone - Compensation for losses by subject of expropriation: as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the result of the appraiser AB entrustment by this court to the appraiser AB, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Each appraisal conducted in the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Plaintiffs and the ruling on the acceptance and objection is unlawful in the selection of comparative standard sites, and in light of the appraisal and compensation precedents, the market price of the object of expropriation was not properly reflected, such as where the object of expropriation is considerably low in the appraisal and compensation precedents.

On the other hand, although the result of this court's entrustment of appraisal did not go more than the result of each appraisal conducted in the above acceptance ruling and objection ruling, it still did not reflect the market price of the above acceptance object due to the selection of comparative standard and the evaluation of individual factors. Therefore, the legitimate compensation (excluding the above acceptance ruling and the portion paid according to this ruling) that the plaintiffs should receive from the defendant is more than the difference between the appraisal result of the above objection and the appraisal result of this court's entrustment of appraisal.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay each amount stated in the "amount of claim" in the attached Table to the plaintiffs and the delay damages therefor.

B. One lawsuit concerning increase or decrease in land expropriation compensation.