1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 594,00 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 600,00 for Plaintiff B; (c) KRW 3,137,500 for Plaintiff C; and (d) KRW 2,342,200 for Plaintiff D.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: J General Industrial Complex Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): - Business area: K 637,701 square meters - Public announcement of Cheongnam-do on June 29, 2011; M publicly announced on March 14, 2013 - Defendant:

(b) The adjudication of expropriation on January 19, 2015 by the Chungcheongnam-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): Each land indicated in the column for “subject matter of expropriation” in the attached Table of the compensation statement owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant land”): The starting date of expropriation: February 18, 2015 - The amount of compensation calculated as indicated in the attached Table of the compensation statement - The amount of compensation - The amount of compensation calculated as indicated in the “adjudication of Expropriation” column - The appraisal corporation: Dre Appraisal Corporation, one appraisal corporation, one stock company, etc.

D. The court appraisal results (hereinafter “court appraisal”) with respect to N appraiser’s office and appraiser’s N (hereinafter “Court appraiser”) of this Court - The court appraiser selected the instant land as a comparative standard for the point of time revision, regional factors, and individual factors after comparing the instant land with the point of time revision, regional factors, and other factors, and then revised the other factors based on the compensation example and actual transaction cases, and then calculated the compensation amount as indicated in the annexed sheet of the compensation statement in the annexed sheet [based for recognition] as stated in the annexed sheet of the compensation statement, there is no dispute over the calculation of the compensation amount [based for recognition]; evidence No. 2; evidence No. 3-1 through 7; evidence No. 1-1, No. 2-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings; and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The amount of compensation determined by the instant expropriation ruling as to the land alleged by the Plaintiffs does not fully reflect the location, shape, environment, and current use of the land at issue. Therefore, the Defendant should additionally pay the difference between the reasonable amount of compensation and the reasonable amount of compensation to the Plaintiffs.

B. In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation 1, the appraisal by each appraisal agency, which forms the basis of the ruling, and the appraiser selected by the court.