1. The Defendant: KRW 27,432,962 to Plaintiff A; KRW 503,489 to Plaintiff C, D, and E respectively; and KRW 335,662 to Plaintiff B.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) recognition and public notice of a project - The F General Industrial Complex Development Project - The F General Industrial Complex Development Project: G public notice of Chungcheongnam-do on June 29, 201, H public notice of Chungcheongnam-do on March 30, 201, H public notice of Chungcheongnam-do on March 14, 2013, JJ public notice of Chungcheongnam-do on July 12, 2013 - The Defendant (KCC Construction Co., Ltd. was changed to the Defendant)

B. Decision on expropriation made on February 17, 2014 by the Chungcheongnam-do Regional Land Tribunal of Chungcheongnam-do - Persons subject to expropriation: as shown in the column for “land” in the annexed Table 1 compensation details table.

(hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case"). - Amount of compensation: Attached Table 1 of the details of compensation: The amount of adjudication for expropriation is as stated in the column.

- Commencement date of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on March 19, 2014 - An appraisal corporation: Sam Chang and an appraisal corporation;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on August 21, 2014 - Contents of the ruling: The details of the ruling are as indicated in the “amount of the ruling” in the attached Table 1.

- An appraisal corporation: The first appraisal corporation, the appraisal corporation (applicable to recognition), the corporation with no dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 28 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As a result of exercising an unfair pressure by KCC Construction Co., Ltd., which was the first project implementer of the plaintiffs' assertion, to reduce the appraisal value of land to an appraisal corporation, the appraisal corporation has assessed the amount of compensation for each land of this case under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes without closely examining various corrective factors such as the land use plan and the current status, etc., and thus, the defendant should pay the difference between the compensation duly determined according to the court appraiser's appraisal and the compensation determined in the appraisal.

(b)as shown in Appendix 2 of the relevant statute.

C. The basis for the ruling of acceptance in litigation concerning the increase or decrease of one compensation.