1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 26,586,260 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 26,274,090 to Plaintiff B; (c) KRW 37,080,550 to Plaintiff C; and (d) KRW 27,90 to Plaintiff D.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project name: G Housing redevelopment rearrangement project - Project implementer: Defendant - A public announcement of project approval: Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 16, 2013;

B. Decision on expropriation made on September 30, 2016 by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal - The object of expropriation is as described in each item of "subject matter of expropriation" in the attached Table.

(hereinafter referred to as “objects subject to expropriation of this case”) - Compensation: Each description of “compensation for adjudication on expropriation” in the attached list is as follows.

- From the starting date of expropriation: An appraisal corporation in November 18, 2016 - the KMJ and the KRABB - The comparison standard area: The above two appraisal corporations shall select each of them as a comparative standard area with respect to each land among the objects to be expropriated in this case, in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government L-122 square meters (the utilization status: a detached house, a specific use area: a Class-II general residential area, a Class-II special residential area, a road traffic, a shape/land:

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on October 26, 2017 - Compensation for losses: Each entry in the separate list of the items “compensation for the instant ruling”.

- Certified public appraisal corporation: The merger plan and the NBA-Compared land: The above two appraisal corporations shall select each land of 122 square meters in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City L-gu (a detached house, a specific use area: a Class-II general use area, a Class-II general use area, a road traffic: a small side/bridge: a small side/bridge) as a comparative standard for each land among the objects to be expropriated in this case, and there is no dispute (based on recognition), and the purport of Gap evidence 1-7, Gap evidence 1-7, and Gap evidence 2-1 through 7, and the purport

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion that the amount of compensation for objection against the subject matter of expropriation cannot be deemed a reasonable amount of compensation. Thus, the Plaintiffs seek additional compensation corresponding to the difference between a reasonable amount of compensation according to the court’s appraisal result and the amount of compensation for objection.

B. In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation 1, each appraisal and court appraiser, which form the basis for the ruling, are all the same.