1. The Defendant: 14,402,850 won to Plaintiff A; 25,434,000 won to Plaintiff B; and 24,236,900 won to Plaintiff C; and each of the said money.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: D public housing project area; - Public housing project area: Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Institute 676,000 square meters - Public notice: F publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 26, 2010 - A project operator: Defendant;

(b) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on March 26, 2015 - Subject to expropriation: The amount of G land owned by the Plaintiff, H land owned by Plaintiff B, I land owned by Plaintiff C, and each ground obstacles on each of the above land - The date of expropriation commencement: May 19, 2015 - Compensation for losses: The amount of money in attached Table “compensation for expropriation” as stated in attached Table;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on December 17, 2015 - Compensation for losses: Each amount indicated in the column for “compensation for this ruling” in the attached Table attached hereto (based on recognition) is without dispute, and the purport of the entire entries and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A1 through 6 (including paper numbers) is as follows.

2. The compensation determined by the ruling on an objection against each of the lands owned by the plaintiffs is remarkably low. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the reasonable compensation and the compensation determined by the ruling on an objection.

3. According to the court’s entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser J and the purport of the entire pleadings, the appraiser J designated by this court is a comparative standard. K land for the land owned by the plaintiff, the land owned by the plaintiff Eul for the land owned by the plaintiff, the land owned by the plaintiff Eul for the land owned by the plaintiff Eul, and the land owned by the plaintiff Eul for the land owned by the plaintiff Eul was selected by each time adjustment and regional factors, and the compensation for each land owned by the plaintiffs was calculated as stated in the "court appraisal amount" column in the attached Table (hereinafter “court appraisal”) by revising each other factor compared with similar compensation precedents.

In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, both the appraisal by each appraisal agency and the appraisal by an appraiser selected by the court, which form the basis of adjudication, do not have any illegality in the method of appraisal, and the appraisal remains after excluding the individual factor and vision.