1. The defendant,

A. 20,309,100 won to Plaintiff A and 5% per annum from December 18, 2012 to August 11, 2014.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Three Bogeumjari Housing Project (hereinafter “instant Project”) - The E (No. 3, 2009) announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs - Project operator: Defendant

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on November 16, 2012 - Land subject to expropriation: The same shall apply to each of the relevant “land” among the details of land compensation in attached Form 1 located in the Guri-si located in the Plaintiffs.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands” collectively - Compensation details for losses: The same shall apply to each of the pertinent “adjudication amount of expropriation” in attached Form 1.

- Date of commencement of expropriation: - An appraisal corporation on December 17, 2012 - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation on December 17, 201

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on April 19, 2013 - The Plaintiff A’s content of the ruling is as follows: The amount increased to KRW 202,636,700 of land compensation, and the details of compensation for land attached Table 1, as stated in each corresponding “the amount of the ruling”.

Plaintiff

B and C: Dismissal - The central appraisal corporation and the ordinary appraisal corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "appraisalr for adjudication", and the results of appraisal shall be referred to as "appraisal".

D. The result of this Court’s appraisal and request for complementary appraisal for appraiser G - Compensation for losses: The details of compensation for land annexed to annexed Form 1 are as stated in each court’s appraisal.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 3, 4, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1, 3-5, Eul evidence 1-3 through 3 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the market price appraisal and supplementary appraisal of Gap's appraiser G, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) Of H 32 square meters in Guri-si, Guri-si, A owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “1 land”).

2) Each of the 46 square meters of Guri-si I owned by the Plaintiff B and C (hereinafter referred to as “second-party land”).

It is unreasonable to evaluate the land as a private road in fact. 2) The amount of compensation for loss in the adjudication on each land of this case is too underassessment.