1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 8,260,00 for Plaintiff B; (b) KRW 27,477,450 for Plaintiff C; and (c) for each said money, from April 23, 2016 to April 2017.

1. Details of ruling;

A. The defendant is a project operator who has obtained approval of the industrial complex plan for the E industrial complex development project and implements the above industrial complex plan.

On February 9, 2015, the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City publicly announced the relevant industrial complex plan as the F of the Incheon Metropolitan City public notification.

B. On March 2, 2016, the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on each land owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each land of this case”) (hereinafter “instant ruling of expropriation”) as follows.

(1) Plaintiff A - The date of expropriation: 22 April 22, 2016, G G 238 square meters owned by the Plaintiff - The date of expropriation: 24,038,00 won for compensation: Plaintiff B - The date of expropriation in Gyeyang-gu Incheon owned by the Plaintiff - The date of expropriation: April 22, 2016 - The date of expropriation: 1,000,640,000 won for compensation: the Plaintiff C - the date of expropriation in Gyeyang-gu Incheon owned by the Plaintiff - the Plaintiff 6,039 square meters for I return - the date of expropriation: April 22, 2016 - the date of expropriation: 1,784,826,450 won for compensation:

C. On October 27, 2016, the Central Land Expropriation Committee made an objection against the instant adjudication on expropriation (hereinafter “instant adjudication”) as follows.

(1) Plaintiff A - The amount of compensation for losses shall be increased to KRW 24,264,100. (2) Plaintiff B - The objection shall be dismissed. (3) The Plaintiff C - The amount of compensation for losses shall be increased to KRW 1,808,378,550. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole arguments.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. Since the amount of compensation stipulated in the instant expropriation ruling and the instant objection ruling on each of the instant lands alleged by the Plaintiffs falls short of the reasonable amount of compensation, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiffs increased compensation and delay damages as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. (1) The result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser J (hereinafter “court appraiser”) in this court’s determination is below.