1. The Defendant: 5% per annum from March 15, 2014 to September 11, 2015, respectively, to the Plaintiffs, as well as KRW 125,713,424.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Details of the public works - Project name: C: Project operator - The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government - Public Notice: D Public Notice on April 18, 2013;

B. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on January 24, 2014 (hereinafter “adjudication of expropriation”): The starting date of expropriation: March 14, 2014 - The portion owned by the plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant land”) among the portion owned by the plaintiffs (each co-owned land portion 1119/4212) and the above ground obstacles (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): The compensation for losses: The calculation of compensation against the plaintiffs based on the arithmetic mean of each appraisal result by the future appraisal corporations and dialogue appraisal corporations.

C. The Central Land Tribunal made an objection on June 19, 2014 (hereinafter “Objection”) - Compensation for losses: The Central Land Tribunal shall calculate the amount of compensation (hereinafter “Objection Compensation”) against the Plaintiffs, as stated in the [Attachment Table 1] column of “Calculation of Compensation” (hereinafter “Objection Details”) in attached Table 1, based on the arithmetic average of the respective appraisal results (hereinafter collectively “Objection Appraisal”) by flood appraisal corporations and Albannan appraisal corporations (hereinafter “Objection Appraisal”) (hereinafter “Objection Appraisal”) and the respective appraisal results (hereinafter “Objection Appraisal”)

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiffs’ assertion appraisal evaluated the entire land of this case as “forest”, the instant land has been used as a tennis site from around 1958, which was prior to the designation of a development restriction zone, and thus, it should be evaluated as “sports facilities” or “miscellaneous land” in accordance with the present situation appraisal principle.

In addition, the appraisal of the ruling was mistakenly selected as a comparative standard, and the defendant calculated the compensation for the plaintiffs by erroneously evaluating the characteristics of the land in this case, the comparison of the values of the land in this case, and other factors correction, so it was too low.