1. The plaintiff E's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The Defendant: 19,534,594 won to Plaintiff A; and 17,525,416 won to Plaintiff B.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) project approval and public notice - Echeon City Urban Planning Facility Project (I) - Public notice: the Defendant on July 3, 2015 - K in the public notice of Leecheon-si and on December 17, 2015 - Project operator:

B. The ruling of expropriation by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on October 4, 2016 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”): The land subject to expropriation as stated in the column for “land subject to expropriation” in attached Table 1 attached to the Plaintiffs’ owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each of the instant land subject to expropriation”, and the land subject to expropriation shall be classified as “each of the instant land,” and the land shall be specified only as Ri and lot number when referring to individual land: November 18, 2016: Compensation as stated in the column for “land subject to expropriation” as stated in attached Table 2: An appraisal corporation dialogued with an appraisal corporation and an appraisal corporation on the date (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”)

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on June 22, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) - The content of the ruling: Plaintiff A, B, and C’s objection is dismissed, respectively, and the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ compensation is determined to increase the amount as stated in the column for “the amount of objection” as stated in the separate sheet 2 attached Table 2 - An appraisal corporation: Aver appraisal corporation and the Pacific appraisal corporation (hereinafter “the appraisal result”)

D. Results of appraiser L’s appraisal (hereinafter “court appraiser”) - Contents of appraisal as stated in the column of “court appraisal amount” (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - Table 2 attached hereto: The fact that there is no dispute as to whether there is any dispute, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), the result of appraiser’s market price appraisal, the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. As to the lawsuit of this case by Plaintiff E seeking payment of the difference between the court appraisal amount and the amount of the objection made, the Defendant claimed and received the increased portion of the objection without any reservation by Plaintiff E. Therefore, Plaintiff E’s objection.