1. The Defendants are listed in the separate sheet attached hereto to Plaintiffs A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, and S.

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' claim for damages

(a) The following facts were found: Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 8-1, 9, Eul evidence 10-1, 12-1, 12-3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2-1 to 2-4, Eul evidence 2-1-3, Eul evidence 1-2.

B) The Defendants thereafter dominc City Y (hereinafter “Y”)

(3) The Plaintiffs and other victims (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) can not be said to have increased the land price since there was no development plan for the Han River. However, either directly or by their employees may not be deemed to have purchased or entrusted the purchase or sale of the land in their own name from the owners.

Within three to four years to Y.