1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs each amount stated in the separate sheet of compensation details in the separate sheet and each of them.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: L-Public notice on a waterfront development project: M announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 14, 2012 - Business operator: Defendant;

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on May 22, 2014 - Land subject to expropriation: Each land indicated in the column for “land subject to expropriation” in the separate sheet on the details of compensation owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each land of this case”) - The starting date of expropriation: The amount of compensation on July 15, 2014 - The amount of compensation shall be as specified in the separate sheet on the details of compensation.

- An appraisal corporation: one appraisal corporation and the Korea Appraisal Board;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on February 26, 2015 - Amount of compensation: The “compensation for objection” in the attached Table of the details of compensation shall be as stated respectively.

- An appraisal corporation: Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings in Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 through 4 (including each number in the case with a serial number), and the whole statement in the appraisal corporation, the corporation's 1, 2, and the appraisal corporation's 1 and 4.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As a result of an error in the process of selecting comparative standard land and evaluating individual factors, the Plaintiffs’ assertion and ruling of acceptance and objection made by the appraisal corporation are deemed to fall short of the compensation for each of the lands of this case, which is not consistent with the principle of equity with the surrounding land. As such, the Defendant should pay the difference between the compensation reasonably fixed and the compensation determined in the appraisal by the court appraiser’s appraisal.

B. In a lawsuit concerning an increase or decrease of one compensation, each appraisal agency’s appraisal and the court appraiser’s appraisal based on the expropriation ruling do not have any illegality in the appraisal methods, and the remaining appraisal factors except for the individual assessment factors are identical with each other, but there is a difference in the appraisal results due to a somewhat different difference in the appraisal results, among them, one of the individual factors of the appraisal.