1. The Defendant’s respective KRW 27,094,60 for each of the Plaintiffs and 5% per annum from June 5, 2014 to January 25, 2018, respectively.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name - Business name Da (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - Project implementation authorization - Project implementation authorization : E public notice of Kimpo-si on November 11, 2013, F public notice of Kimpo-si on March 14, 2014, G public notice of Kimpo-si on August 27, 2014 - Project implementer: Defendant:

(b) The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on April 20, 2015 - The target of expropriation: H 1,226 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) at Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, the plaintiffs share 1/2 shares: The starting date of expropriation - Compensation for losses on June 4, 2014 - The Compensation for losses amounting to KRW 1,339,405,00 for each of the plaintiffs - The Appraisal Corporation between the appraisal corporations, the stock company, and the appraisal corporation at sight.

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on objection made on December 17, 2015 - Compensation for losses: Each of the plaintiffs 1,345,596,300 - An appraisal corporation: a national appraisal corporation, a stock company, and a Samsung Appraisal Corporation;

(d) The result of the commission of appraiser I by this Court - Compensation for losses: 1,372,690,900 won by each plaintiff (assessment of this case's land for residential purpose)

E. Results of the court's entrustment to appraiser J - Compensation for losses - Each plaintiff's each 1,504,915,000 won (based on the evaluation of the land of this case on a commercial premise for a conditional appraisal) / The fact that there is no dispute, each statement of Gap's evidence 1 through 4 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the court's appraiser I and J's fact-finding results of each appraisal entrustment to the appraiser I and J, and the purport of the whole arguments as a result of fact-finding inquiry to appraiser I;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the appraisal result and the appraisal result of appraiser I's I's appraisal result do not reach the reasonable amount of compensation for losses as follows.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the difference between the appraised value of the appraiser J, the amount of compensation for loss, and damages for delay to the plaintiffs who corrected such unlawful acts.

(1) The instant land may have commercial buildings, such as restaurants, billiards, laundrys, and private teaching institutes, in and around their surroundings.