1. The Defendant’s each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 1,00,000 and each of them shall be 5% per annum from May 16, 2015 to June 8, 2017.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project name: D Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Defendant - Public announcement of project implementation authorization: Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement on November 10, 201;

B. Decision on expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of March 27, 2015 - The date of expropriation: May 15, 2015 - The date of expropriation: the Plaintiff’s wholesale and retail business, such as sports supplies, which the Plaintiff used in its trade name as “I” on the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu H and the first floor; Kwikset service business; the Plaintiff’s Kwikset service business (hereinafter referred to as “each business of this case”; the Plaintiff’s business operation (hereinafter referred to as “K”); each business operation of this case; the above business operation site “each of this case”); the Plaintiff’s 3,679,000 won for each business of this case; the Plaintiff’s 3,64,000 won for the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff’s 4,280,000 won for the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff’s - the Plaintiff’s appraisal corporation’s business suspension loss; the Plaintiff’s business suspension loss; and the Plaintiff’s - the Plaintiff’s appraisal corporation’s business suspension loss.

C. In the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 27, 2016, the Central Land Tribunal rejected an objection regarding the plaintiffs’ application for business compensation on March 4, 2016 by deeming that each of the instant businesses is not referred to in the adjudication of expropriation as being subject to business compensation, and thus constitutes a failure of adjudication. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land Tribunal has continued to apply for the plaintiffs’ business compensation to the said Committee, deeming that the application for business compensation continues to exist in the said Committee. Accordingly, the

b. - The content of the ruling: The plaintiff B's businesses are waiting for transportation officers for the reason that the respective businesses of the plaintiff A and C are judged to be warehouses for the storage of goods and offices among the businesses of this case.