1. The Defendant’s respective KRW 20,158,00 for each of the Plaintiffs, and 5% per annum from February 12, 2014 to October 13, 2015, respectively.

1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Railroad construction projects (C vehicle base construction projects (15js): The defendant: D public notice by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on November 6, 2012; E on June 4, 2013;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on December 19, 2013 - Subject to expropriation: F. 61 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Echeon-si, Leecheon-si, in which the Plaintiffs own 1/2 shares, - Compensation money for expropriation by Plaintiff: Each of 53,541,000 won - Date of commencement of expropriation: February 11, 2014.

The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on January 22, 2015 - The content of the adjudication: rejected all the Plaintiffs’ claims that increase the compensation for expropriation of the instant land and purchase the land of 872 square meters (hereinafter “G land”) and 501 square meters (hereinafter “H land”) prior to Dongcheon-si, Leecheon-si, which is the remaining land, or compensation for the decline in the value thereof.

The result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to appraiser I (hereinafter “court appraisal”): The appraiser selected 2,714 square meters prior to the J of Leecheon-si, in the same manner as the appraisal in the adjudication of expropriation (hereinafter “adjudication”) is based on a comparative standard for the land of this case. After comparing the time adjustment, regional factors, individual factors, and other factors, the compensation for the expropriation of the land of this case against the plaintiffs was assessed as 54,532,50 won each.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-10, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the result of this court's commission of appraisal to the appraiser I, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The amount of compensation for the plaintiffs' assertion regarding the land of this case is too underassessment because it failed to properly reflect the actual situation of land utilization, so compensation should be increased, and the plaintiffs' losses due to the decline in the value of the remaining land of this case shall also be compensated.