1. The Defendant: 16,60,000 won to Plaintiff A; 20,600,000 won to Plaintiff B; 17,700,000 won to Plaintiff C; and 19,350 won to Plaintiff D.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: S housing redevelopment rearrangement project - Project operator: Defendant - A public announcement of business approval: The Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement on August 16, 2013;

B. Decision on expropriation made on September 30, 2016 by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal - The object of expropriation is as described in each item of "subject matter of expropriation" in the attached Table.

(hereinafter referred to as “objects subject to expropriation of this case”) - Compensation: Each description of “compensation for adjudication on expropriation” in the attached list is as follows.

- The date of commencement of expropriation: November 18, 2016 - Appraisal Corporation: UAB and V.

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on October 26, 2017 - Compensation for losses: Each entry in the separate list of the items “compensation for the instant ruling”.

- 감정평가법인 : ㈜W, ㈜X [인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1호증, 갑 제2호증의 11, 16, 18, 23, 24, 38, 39, 60, 62, 64, 69, 갑 제7호증, 갑 제8호증의 11, 16, 18, 23, 24, 38, 39, 59, 62, 64, 69의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The Defendant’s main defense K had already died before the instant lawsuit was filed.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs' legal representative filed the lawsuit of this case with the deceased K as the plaintiff, not the deceased's heir, who is not the deceased's heir. This part of the lawsuit filed with the deceased as the party shall be dismissed as unlawful.

B. Determination 1) Even if the party dies, the attorney’s power of attorney is not extinguished (Article 95 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act). If the party died before the lawsuit was instituted after delegating the litigation to the attorney, and the party was aware that the party died and then the party was designated as the plaintiff, such institution is legitimate, and the effect of the lawsuit, such as interruption of prescription, is reverted to the inheritor.

In such cases, the heir of the deceased who is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 233(1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall take the procedure.