1. The Defendant: 14,745,850 won for Plaintiff A; 14,80,100 won for Plaintiff B; 14,901,250 won for Plaintiff C; and 12,759 for Plaintiff D.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project approval and development - Public announcement: The defendant;

(b) Adjudication on expropriation by a local Land Tribunal of Sejong Special Self-Governing City on May 12, 2015 - Each land indicated in the column of “land to be expropriated” listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each land of this case”): The starting date of expropriation: The amount of compensation on July 1, 2015 - The amount of compensation specified in the corresponding column of “compensation for expropriation” in the separate sheet.

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on objection made on October 22, 2015 - Amount of compensation: Each amount indicated in the corresponding column of “compensation for the instant ruling” in the attached list [based on recognition] and each statement in subparagraphs 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with a serial number) and the purport of all pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In comparison between the plaintiffs' assertion and the appraisal business entity of this case with the land of this case, the plaintiffs' claim acceptance ruling and the appraisal business entity of this case made an error in calculating the difference between individual factors and the land of this case, thereby undermining the amount of compensation for each of the land of this case. Thus, the defendant should pay the difference between the compensation reasonably determined according to the appraisal by the court appraiser and the compensation under this ruling.

B. In a lawsuit concerning an increase or decrease of one compensation, where the appraisal by each appraisal agency and the appraisal by a court appraiser are not illegal in the appraisal methods and there is no other reason in the appraisal methods, and there is a difference in the appraisal result due to a somewhat different relationship with each other, inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in the content of an individual assessment of one compensation, adopting any one of the appraisal methods and recognizing it as a legitimate compensation value is contrary to the logical rule and the empirical rule.