1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims that have been reduced and expanded in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

1. Details of ruling;

(a) business approval and public notice - H Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (I Day in Busan Metropolitan Government) - J on August 8, 2012, and K on April 2, 2014 - Project operator: Defendant

B. The adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): Land and obstacles owned by the plaintiffs in the rearrangement project zone, which are indicated in the attached Table “subject to expropriation” column.

- Compensation for losses: as shown in the attached Table “Adjudication Amount for Expropriation” column.

- Commencement date of expropriation: November 2014

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on an objection (hereinafter referred to as the "adjudication on an objection of this case") - Contents of the adjudication: It shall be as shown in the column of "amount of the objection" in the attached Table.

Results of entrustment of appraisal with respect to L of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "appraisal of the court of first instance"): Contents of appraisal: It shall be as stated in the attached Table "amount of appraisal of the court of first instance".

E. The result of this Court’s request for appraisal - Contents of appraisal - Contents of appraisal : as stated in the “amount of appraisal per instance” column in the annexed sheet.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 6, the result of a commission of appraisal to appraiser L by the court of first instance, the result of a commission of appraisal to appraiser T by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a lawsuit against the increase or decrease of the plaintiffs' claim for judgment, there are several appraisal and assessment contrary to the same facts, and there is no evidence to prove that any one of them is erroneous, even if a court employs any one of each appraisal and assessment, it cannot be deemed unlawful unless it is contrary to the logical or empirical rules.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1570, Dec. 11, 2014). Therefore, in the instant case, the health team, the objection ruling, the first instance court’s appraisal, and the first instance trial appraisal are different in terms of the amount of assessment, but all of them are deemed to be lawfully assessed in accordance with the relevant statutes.