1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Approval and Public Notice - Private Investment Project (D) - Public Notice: The F-project operator announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on March 21, 201, published by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on August 12, 201: the Seoul Regional Construction and Management Administration;

(b) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation 1 on April 17, 2014 - Plaintiff A: Transfer expenses incurred in relation to G containers, food administration, and collection fixtures, etc. - Plaintiff B: He/she: H ground office, poppy, strawl, internal panel, and office 2: The date of commencement of expropriation: June 10, 2014) - Plaintiff A: 4,350,000 won - Plaintiff B: 7,590,000 won (the fact that there is no ground for recognition, evidence 1, 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination as to whether a lawsuit is appropriate

A. Article 85(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) provides that “Any project operator, landowner or person concerned may institute an administrative litigation within 60 days from the date of receiving a written adjudication when dissatisfied with the adjudication under Article 34, and within 30 days from the date of receiving a written adjudication on the filing of objection when he/she has filed an objection, respectively.” Thus, filing a lawsuit seeking an increase of compensation without going through the adjudication under Article 34 is unlawful.

B. The fact that Plaintiff A and B received each of the above written adjudication on acceptance around April 2014 is either a dispute between the parties, or is recognized by the purport of the pleading. The fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on November 4, 2014, much more than 60 days after the instant lawsuit was filed, is apparent in the record.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed by Plaintiff A and B after the lapse of the filing period, is unlawful.

The Plaintiff A raised an objection against the above acceptance ruling solely with the statement of No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 2

It is insufficient to conclude that an objection has been lodged, and otherwise, it is difficult to conclude.