1. The Plaintiff, among the parts against Defendant D Co., Ltd. in the judgment of the court of first instance, falls under the following amount ordering payment.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) project approval and public notice - A development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - B, et al., a public notice of the project approval and public notice of the project approval and public notice of the project approval and public notice of the project approval and public notice of the project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) on September 15, 201, E, December 17, 201, and G of the same public notice on July 18, 201

B. Adjudication on expropriation on December 26, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication on expropriation”): The Plaintiff, etc. - The mortgagee of the instant land, who is the mortgagee of the instant land, - Compensation for losses: 169,497,300 won - Details of adjudication: The date of expropriation of the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the project implementer did not faithfully negotiate on compensation - the date of expropriation: February 14, 2014.

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on May 22, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the ruling") - Contents of the ruling: ① the increase of compensation as follows, ② the rejection of Plaintiff B's assertion that the project implementer did not faithfully negotiate on compensation - the fact that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap's evidence 1 through 3, Eul's each statement in the evidence 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) against the defendant committee (the plaintiff Eul, at the time of consultation on compensation for the land in this case's claim, and the plaintiff Eul, while residing in Seoul, had been entrusted with the management of the land in this case to I, the defendant company did not seek active consultation with the defendant company, such as visiting only the address of the plaintiff Eul in absence, rather than conducting specific and substantial consultation with I, and finding the domicile of the plaintiff Eul.

In addition, the defendant company sent a written statement of agreement to the plaintiff B before the end of the last consultation period, and the written statement of agreement submitted by the defendant committee and the defendant company as evidence are inconsistent with each other.