1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,177,790 for Plaintiff A and B; (b) KRW 6,300,670 for Plaintiff C; (c) KRW 7,000,00 for Plaintiff D; and (d) KRW 7.00 for Plaintiff F.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) business approval and public notice - H Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (I Day in Busan Metropolitan Government) - J on August 8, 2012, and K on April 2, 2014 - Project operator: Defendant

B. The adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): Land and obstacles owned by the plaintiffs in the rearrangement project zone, which are indicated in the attached Table “subject to expropriation” column.

- Compensation for losses: as shown in the attached Table “Adjudication Amount for Expropriation” column.

- Commencement date of expropriation: November 2014

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on an objection (hereinafter referred to as the "adjudication on an objection of this case") - Contents of the adjudication: It shall be as shown in the column of "amount of the objection" in the attached Table.

Results of request for appraisal with respect to the appraiser L of this Court (hereinafter referred to as "court appraisal") - Contents of appraisal: The amount of appraisal shall be as stated in the column of "amount of court appraisal" in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 6, the result of a request for appraisal to the appraiser L by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion, the instant acceptance ruling and the instant objection ruling are considerably low in view of their value, and thus, seek an increase in the value of compensation.

B. In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation for claims by Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, and F, in the case of both the appraisal and the appraisal by the court appraiser, which form the basis of the adjudication, have no illegality in the evaluation methods, and there is no illegality in the remaining price calculation factors except for the category of goods, etc., but in the case where there is a difference in the appraisal results due to a somewhat different relationship between the appraisal and the category of goods, etc., unless there is any evidence to prove that there is an error in the description of the goods, etc. of any of the appraisal, it is logical and empirical rules to recognize each of the said appraisal as a legitimate amount.