1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 19,172,130 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 23,815,800 to Plaintiff B; (c) KRW 18,037,100 to Plaintiff C; and (d) KRW 39,613 to Plaintiff D.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Authorization and public notice of project implementation - M-Housing redevelopment rearrangement project - Defendant - Rearrangement project zone: - Public notice of project implementation authorization - Public notice of 41,907 square meters in Busan Metropolitan City Maritime Transport Daegu - Public notice of Maritime Transport Daegu on February 20, 2013

B. Adjudication on expropriation by the Regional Land Tribunal of Busan Metropolitan City on August 25, 2014 - Land subject to expropriation: The land and obstacles owned by the plaintiffs in the rearrangement project zone are as indicated in the annexed Table “land subject to expropriation and obstacles” column.

- Compensation for losses: as shown in the annexed sheet “compensation amount” column.

- Commencement date of expropriation: October 20, 2014

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on an objection (hereinafter referred to as "adjudication on an objection") on January 22, 2015 - Contents of the adjudication: The term "amount of the adjudication on an objection" in the attached Table shall be as specified in attached Table.

The result of the court's entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser P (hereinafter referred to as "court appraisal") - Contents of appraisal: The amount of appraisal shall be as stated in the column of "amount of court appraisal" in the attached Table.

E. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiffs all compensation following the ruling on objection.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion of compensation for losses under the adjudication on the Plaintiffs’ assertion was selected as a comparative standard between the land to be expropriated by the Plaintiffs and the real situation of their utilization, etc., and the court’s appraisal was somewhat modified, but it was less low due to the limit of the existing appraiser’s appraisal.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay to the Plaintiffs each money as stated in the “Plaintiff Claim Amount” column of the attached Table, which increased approximately 20% of the difference between the amount of compensation according to the result of the court appraisal and the amount of compensation for objection.

B. In a lawsuit involving an increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, there is no illegality in the method of appraisal of the adjudication and the court appraisal, and there is no remainder of price computation factors except for individual factors and vision.