1. All of the plaintiffs' claims against the primary defendant and the conjunctive defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) project approval and public notice - A development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - B, et al., a public notice of the project approval and public notice of the project approval and public notice of the project approval and public notice of the project approval and public notice of the project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) on September 15, 201, E, December 17, 201, and G of the same public notice on July 18, 201

B. Adjudication on expropriation on December 26, 2013 (hereinafter “adjudication on expropriation”): H 67,601 square meters of forests and fields H 67,601 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”). - Related parties, such as the Plaintiff of the instant land, the mortgagee C, etc. - Compensation for losses: KRW 1,169,497,300 - Details of adjudication: The Plaintiffs’ assertion that the project implementer did not faithfully negotiate on compensation should be dismissed. - The date of commencement of expropriation: February 14, 2014.

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on May 22, 2014 (hereinafter “Objection”) - Contents of the ruling: ① accepted the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the increase of compensation as follows; ② rejected Plaintiff B’s assertion that the project implementer did not reach a sincere agreement on compensation: Compensation for losses: 1,172,87,530 KRW 1,172,87,530; - The fact that there was no dispute over the ground for recognition; 1 through 3, 1, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of consultation on compensation for the land of this case asserted against the primary defendant of the plaintiffs' assertion, the plaintiff B was in China, and the plaintiff C was residing in Seoul, and the plaintiffs were in Seoul, and the plaintiffs were in charge of management of the land of this case.

The defendant company did not present reasonable prices to the plaintiffs only once, and did not neglect I, and made consistent attitude in high-tension and faith.

In addition, the plaintiffs did not directly sign and seal the consultation papers, and the defendant company did not refuse to sign and seal them, but the defendant company prepared a consultation papers without going through any consultation with the plaintiffs and filed an application for adjudication with the defendant committee.

The Defendant Commission’s ruling on acceptance of the instant case was made without specific and substantial consultation.