1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,500,000 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 9,500,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from December 15, 2016 to October 4, 2018.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: C Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project - Public notice of project authorization: The defendant on August 25, 201, D public notice of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on October 20, 201, E public notice of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on October 20, 201, and Bupyeong-gu public notice of Incheon Metropolitan City on September 22, 2015;

B. Adjudication on expropriation by October 25, 2016 of the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal - Subject to expropriation: Sectioned sections in the column of "subject to expropriation" in the attached Table - The amount indicated in the column of "compensation for expropriation" in the attached Table - The starting date of expropriation: December 14, 2016.

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on November 23, 2017 - Compensation for losses: The amount indicated in the column for “compensation for this ruling” in the attached Table.

(d) Court appraisal results - Each of the plaintiffs 136,00,000 won (based on recognition), Gap evidence 1 and 2, the result of commission of appraisal to G, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As the appraisal result, which forms the basis of the plaintiffs' assertion, is evaluated too low in the value of a sectioned building owned by the plaintiffs, the defendant is obliged to pay the difference between the reasonable amount of compensation of the sectioned building to be expropriated and the amount of compensation of this ruling.

B. 1) Determination 1) In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for losses for the adoption of the appraisal result, in cases where the appraisal result and the court appraisal result, which form the basis of the adjudication, do not have any illegality in the appraisal method and there is no evidence to prove that there is any particular error in the appraisal contents, whether to trust any one of the appraisal results belongs to the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14779, Jun. 29, 1993). This court shall adopt the court’s appraisal result that appears to reflect more appropriately the characteristics and various factors in the price formation of a sectioned building owned by the Plaintiffs by specifying the comparison of transaction factors between the sectioned building and similar transaction cases. 2) The amount of compensation to be paid to the Plaintiffs.