1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 165,890,300, Plaintiff B’s KRW 14,659,960, and each said money, from May 10, 2014.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business name - Business name : C Corporation - Public notice: December 24, 2009; Gwangjin-gu public notice on October 17, 2013 - Business name E: Defendant

B. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land Tribunal’s local land expropriation ruling (hereinafter “adjudication of expropriation”) on March 21, 2014 (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu”) is compensation for losses (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City F”) and the Plaintiff A G G 58.2m2m2,550,00 H 54.8m2,578m2,66,660 H 54,500 H 54.8m2, 600, Plaintiff B JJ 87.2m2m2,089,4440 K- ground buildings 266,414,650m2m2,77 JJ 87.2m2,00 m26,414,650 - The date of expropriation: An appraisal corporation and an appraisal corporation on May 9, 2014;

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection (hereinafter “adjudication on objection”) dated 17, 2014 - The same as the adjudication on expropriation and compensation for losses - An appraisal corporation: A new appraisal corporation in the future, a stock company, and a Korean C&T appraisal corporation.

D. On the other hand, on December 23, 2009, the part of the building on the land subject to accommodation among the I and L site buildings in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 159.5 square meters and H large 54.8 square meters, and L large 198.2 square meters was divided into 140 square meters and G large 58.2 square meters, and thereafter, as the building was expropriated only on the land subject to accommodation prior to subdivision and L site, part of the building on the land subject to accommodation was expropriated together, and only the remaining building remains.

(The remaining buildings are not divided into the buildings indicated as “I-ground buildings” under the above table, and the buildings before and after the expropriation of the remaining buildings, and are not divided into the buildings after the expropriation (which is the ground for recognition), and there is no dispute, and the entries and arguments of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, and Eul Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number) are the whole purport of the arguments and arguments.

2. As to the repair cost of the building of this case among each real estate owned by the plaintiffs in summary of the assertion, the plaintiff A is obligated to pay the whole amount of the building of this case to the plaintiffs, and the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the reasonable compensation and the compensation under the expropriation ruling and the objection ruling.

3. Determination

A. The result of the commission of appraisal to the appraiser M as designated by this Court (hereinafter “court appraisal”).