1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 301,963,250, and KRW 208,427,500 to the plaintiff B, and KRW 847,034,480 to the plaintiff C, respectively.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) project approval and public announcement - An urban development project of Speaker-si (EM - Public notification of the Gyeonggi-do public notification on April 2, 2010; G public notification of the Gyeonggi-do on March 28, 2012; H public notification of Speaker-si on April 9, 2013; G public notification of Gyeonggi-do on April 10, 2014; Defendant:

B. The ruling of expropriation by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on April 25, 2016 (hereinafter “the ruling of expropriation”): The land subject to expropriation as indicated in the column for “land subject to expropriation” in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each of the instant land subject to expropriation” in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) - Compensation for losses: Compensation for losses for each land owned by the Plaintiffs are as indicated in the attached Table.

- The date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation: J-Appraisal Corporation, K-Appraisal Corporation;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on the objection (hereinafter “instant ruling”) on January 19, 2017 - The content of the ruling: The Plaintiffs’ filing an objection to each of the instant land: L Appraisal Corporation and M Appraisal Corporation;

D. The result of the appraiser N's appraisal, the result of the request for the appraisal and supplementation to the appraiser N of this court (hereinafter "court appraiser", and the result of the appraisal is "court appraisal"), - The content of the appraisal shall be as shown in the column of "court appraisal amount" (attached Table Nos. 2, 3, 5-1, 6, 7, 9-2, 10-2, 11, 12, 13-2, 14-2, 15-2, and 15-2 (hereinafter "land subject to the supplementary appraisal").

(3) The court’s appraisal results, the court’s appraisal results, and the purport of the whole pleadings, where the specific-use area has been changed to “the Class-I general residential area” [the basis for recognition] there is no dispute.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Each compensation for each of the lands of this case as set forth in the plaintiffs' assertion of acceptance ruling and objection ruling was significantly limited to the market price.