1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 3,565,240; (b) KRW 55,390,440 to Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW 55,390 to each of the said money. From October 16, 2012 to October 2014.

1. Case history

A. On August 1, 2007, the Defendant: (a) promoted a housing redevelopment project in the area of 39,413 square meters in Busan Northern District, which was designated as a CHousing Redevelopment Improvement Zone; (b) obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on September 30, 2009 from the head of the office of Busan Metropolitan City to the head of the office of North Korea; (c) obtained authorization for the implementation of the project on October 29, 2010; and (d) made a public announcement for the authorization for the implementation of the project on October 7, 2009 (the public announcement E in Busan Metropolitan City Northern District); and (e) made a public announcement for the authorization for the alteration of the implementation plan on November 3, 2010 (the

B. On the other hand, Plaintiff A owned each share of 4/69 square meters of 191/223 square meters among 223 square meters in Northern-gu, Busan, and H 297 square meters and its ground obstacles within the above improvement zone, Plaintiff B owned each share of 4/69 square meters in G, G, 223 square meters, and I large 69 square meters.

C. The Defendant attempted to consult with the Plaintiffs holding the above land and obstacles within the C-Housing Redevelopment Improvement Zone on the acquisition of the above land and obstacles, but as a result, applied for a ruling to the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee.

C. Accordingly, on August 20, 2012, the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of expropriation by determining the commencement date of expropriation as October 15, 2012. Upon the Plaintiffs’ filing of an objection, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of objection on June 20, 2013 (hereinafter “instant ruling”). The amount of the ruling, i.e., compensation for losses, is as indicated in the summary of the content of the ruling.

【Facts without dispute over the ground for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including the provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The compensation for losses set forth in the decision on the objection of this case does not evaluate the fair market price of the target of expropriation. The defendant should pay the increased compensation and its delay damages to the plaintiffs according to the market price appraisal result made by the court. 2) The defendant's assertion of this case.