1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for each amount indicated in the separate sheet of compensation.

1. Details of ruling;

A. Business Recognition and Public Notice - Business Name: O Business Name (hereinafter “instant Project”): Public Notice - Project Operator P, etc. on October 15, 2010 - Defendants

(b) The adjudication of expropriation made on November 26, 2013 by the Chungcheongbuk-do Regional Land Tribunal - The objects to be expropriated and compensation for expropriation: The number of objects to be expropriated in the annexed list of compensation details and the column of the adjudication amount to be expropriated shall be as stated in each column

(hereinafter referred to as "in this case's land number shall be indicated only as the parcel number of the land, such as the Heak-gu Q, the object of expropriation, - An appraisal corporation on January 25, 2014: An appraisal corporation which has agreed to sell the land, but a appraisal corporation which has agreed to sell the land.

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on February 26, 2015 - Contents of the ruling - Contents of the ruling: The same shall apply to entries in the column for objection against the amount of compensation set forth in the attached Table.

- An appraisal corporation: A certified public appraisal corporation in the Dispute Resolution, vice governor [based] among the appraisal corporations in the Dispute Resolution Council, the fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number with each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's entries in subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion acceptance ruling and compensation for each of the lands of this case, which were stipulated in the plaintiffs' assertion acceptance ruling and objection ruling, were excessively underassessment because they failed to properly apply the locational factors, compensation example, and other factors. Thus, the defendant should pay the difference between the compensation reasonably determined in the appraisal by the court appraiser and the compensation in the appraisal by the court appraiser.

B. In a lawsuit as to an increase or decrease of one compensation, each appraisal agency’s appraisal and the court appraiser’s appraisal, which are the basis of the adjudication on expropriation, are not illegal in the appraisal methods, and there is no other reason to believe that the appraisal is not illegal in the appraisal methods, but there is a difference in the appraisal results due to a somewhat different difference in the appraisal results, among them.