1. The Defendants jointly and severally against Plaintiffs A, D, and E each of KRW 91,659,90, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, and Plaintiff F, respectively.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: G - Business approval: Public notice of Gyeonggi-do on April 8, 2013 H- Business operator: Defendants

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on July 27, 2015 - subject to expropriation: The Plaintiffs’ co-ownership of 1 to 654m2 and J forest 8,800m2 (hereinafter “1 and 2m2”) - The starting date of expropriation: September 10, 2015 - Compensation for losses: The same shall apply to each money indicated in the column of “compensation for expropriation” in the attached Table 1 appraisal sheet.

- An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation and a corporation with the same appraisal capacity;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on Jan. 21, 2016 - Compensation for losses: The same shall apply to each amount indicated in the column of “award compensation” in the attached Table 1 assessment report.

- An appraisal corporation: A new appraisal corporation, a corporation with a view to an appraisal corporation;

(d) Each commission to the appraiser K of this Court for appraisal - With respect to land Nos. 1 and 2, an appraisal [based on recognition] as described in the “court appraisal amount” column in the attached Table 1 appraisal report, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of branches; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of each commission to the appraiser K of this Court for appraisal, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the plaintiffs' assertion is as follows. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the difference between the reasonable amount of compensation and the amount of compensation as a result of the appraisal of the objection, and damages for delay to the plaintiffs.

(1) In comparison with the land Nos. 1 and 2, the appraiser of the objection made an erroneous assessment of the street conditions, access conditions, environmental conditions, etc. in comparison with the land Nos. 1 and 2.

(2) Since the land of 6,81.4 square meters among the land of 2 land, 565.6 square meters, and 32.6 square meters among the land of 2 land has been used from 1974 to 1974 respectively, it shall be evaluated as “previous”, “site”, and “road” according to the actual status regardless of the land category entered in the public register.