1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 89,053,540, Plaintiff B’s KRW 178,107,070, and each of the said money from December 1, 2017.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) A project approval and public notice of project approval - A housing redevelopment project (C housing redevelopment rearrangement project): - Public notice of project approval: D public notice of Daegu Metropolitan City on September 30, 2015, Daegu Metropolitan City on October 5, 2015, public notice E of Nam-gu, Daegu Metropolitan City on May 20, 2016, public notice of the project operator G of Daegu Metropolitan City on May 1, 2017, the defendant:

B. Decision on expropriation made on September 25, 2017 by the Regional Land Tribunal of Daegu Metropolitan City - Plaintiff A subject to expropriation 4/12 of equity interest among 820 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”): 8/12 of equity interest among the instant site: 2,169,720,000 (see attached Table 1) in total: 2,169,720,000 (see attached Table 1) - An appraisal institution: J and appraisal corporation and K Appraisal Corporation;

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on June 21, 2018 - Compensation for an objection: Total of KRW 2,368,036,90 (see Table 1 below): L and stock companies M

D. As of September 25, 2017, the date of the court’s appraisal entrustment to N of the appraiser of this Court (hereinafter “the result of the court’s appraisal”), the reasonable price of the instant site was assessed as KRW 2,635,197,600 in total as shown below [Attachment 1].

Plaintiff

Compensation for the adjudication on expropriation of shares (B-12) A 723,240,00 789,345,660,678,39,200 89,053,540 B 8/12,46,480,00 1,578,578,691,30 12,756,798,400 178,178,107,070 12,169,720,7202,368,002,3636,90 2,635,607,600,602,67,67,160,610 / [1] The purport of the entire pleadings / [1] The compensation for damages (unit)

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the expropriation ruling of the land of this case and the compensation for the objection ruling are excessively low compared to the market price in light of the transaction price of other similar lands such as the utilization condition and location of the land.

Therefore, the defendant is justified.