1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 26,685,750, and KRW 1,169,400 for each of the said KRW 1,169,400 for each of the said KRW and each of the said KRW to Plaintiff B and C.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business area: D-Business area: 100,66.39 square meters (hereinafter “instant business area”) in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-dong, - Public Notice of Seongdong-gu on August 10, 2007, Seongdong-gu Public Notice of Seongdong-gu on October 4, 2007, G on February 21, 2008, HH on October 22, 2009, Seongdong-gu Public Notice of Seongdong-gu on October 22, 2009, Seongdong-gu Public Notice of Seongdong-gu on November 22, 201, Seongdong-gu Public Notice of Seongdong-gu on November 28, 201, Seongdong-gu Public Notice of Seongdong-gu on June 28, 201, and Seongdong-gu Public Notice of November 28, 2013; Defendant:

B. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal's ruling on expropriation - the object of expropriation on February 27, 2015: The land indicated in the column for "subject matter of expropriation" (hereinafter "each land of this case", and "Seoul Seongdongdongdong" shall be referred to as "Edong") and buildings on its ground (hereinafter "each building of this case"): The amount indicated in the column for adjudication" in the attached Table - the starting date of expropriation - the claim for additional charges on April 17, 2015: The plaintiffs filed a claim for additional charges due to the delay of the defendant's application, but the plaintiffs were dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs cannot be deemed the claims of the legitimate claimant by filing a claim for adjudication before they become the object of cash liquidation.

- Certified public appraisal corporations: Diplomatic appraisal corporations and national appraisal corporations;

C. The Central Land Tribunal filed a claim for the increase in compensation - the amount of compensation for each land and building of this case, which is the object of expropriation, and the actual status of the Plaintiff-owned building of this case, differs from the current status of the public account, and thus, claims for the reduction of compensation according to the actual status and the payment of additional charges for delay of the Defendant’s application for adjudication were made. However, the amount of compensation for expropriation was reasonable, and it is difficult to recognize the current status of the building alleged by Plaintiff A, and the Plaintiffs become the object of cash settlement.