1. As to Plaintiff A, C, and D, KRW 408,283,986, KRW 446,776,100, and each of the said money to Plaintiff B, respectively, and KRW 446,776,100 on February 12, 2014.

1. Details of ruling;

A. On March 14, 2008, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs publicly notified E, the project implementer designated and publicly notified the G development project operator as the defendant with respect to G development project that develops the F 54.69mm2 (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. The Plaintiffs owned 1/3 shares of the Plaintiff A, C, and D, 23,232 square meters, and 6,280 square meters, respectively, as the owners of the land located within the instant project site. Plaintiff B owned 770 square meters, K miscellaneous land, 1/2 shares, 2,69 square meters, M Miscellaneous land 2,69 square meters, M Miscellaneous land 9,387 square meters, and 402 square meters of N Miscellaneous land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”).

C. On December 19, 2013, the Central Land Tribunal: (a) determined on February 11, 2014 on the date of expropriation of each land specified in attached Table 1 for the instant project; and (b) decided on the compensation as shown in attached Table 1; and (c) the Plaintiffs reserved the objection and received each of the said compensation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Current status of each land of this case and the results of each appraisal;

A. The current status of each of the lands of this case 1) The whole land of this case is an O announcement of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on November 14, 1998, and the former Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Act No. 5803, Feb. 5, 1999; hereinafter “former Industrial Sites Act”).

In principle, the form and quality of each of the instant land, which was designated as an industrial complex pursuant to Article 6, was prohibited in principle by changing the form and quality of the land without permission of the competent authority. (2) At the time of the ruling on expropriation, part of the instant land was used as the answer, miscellaneous

B. The plaintiffs asserted that each of the lands of this case should be assessed on the basis of the current use status as at the time of 1998, as a result of the request for appraisal of appraiser P, and filed an application for appraisal with the appraiser that read the aerial photography taken at the time of 1998 and 200 to indicate the current use status and the size of the land.