1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount corresponding to each corresponding amount stated in the "official seal" in the "General List", and as to this, on January 2015.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name - Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Defendant - Public notice on December 19, 2013

B. Decision on expropriation by September 18, 2015 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal - Subject to expropriation: The same shall apply to the entry of “land to be expropriated” in the attached Table of General List.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands” and “Seoul Dongjak-gu Odong” are only referred to as “Odong.” The Plaintiffs seek an increase in the amount of compensation for damages only for the part of the land in the compensation items, and thus the entry of the obstacles is omitted). - Compensation for losses: The amount indicated in the “amount of adjudication for expropriation” in the attached table of general notice.

- Commencement date of expropriation: On November 6, 2015 - An appraisal corporation: the central appraisal corporation, a stock company, and an appraisal corporation;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on March 24, 2016 - Compensation for losses: The amount indicated in the column for “the amount of objection” in the attached table is as follows.

- An appraisal corporation: Each entry and the whole purport of the pleadings in Sam Chang Appraisal Corporation and Fladar Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication Appraisal”) / [based on recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The land category of P & 79 square meters owned by the Plaintiff C is not only “site,” but also the entire land owned by the said Plaintiff was used as a site for the building. Nevertheless, the adjudication appraisal is based on the part of P and 4 square meters of the land in question (hereinafter “instant part”).

(2) The judgment on the compensation amount should be calculated by evaluating the entire P land as “road”, and the compensation amount should be calculated by evaluating the entire P land as “site.” 2) The judgment on the compensation amount is unfair by evaluating each of the instant land owned by the Plaintiffs excessively low. As such, the Defendant is justified to the Plaintiffs.