1. The Defendant’s payment on October 2014 to the Plaintiffs as stated in the separate sheet of compensation details in the separate sheet of attached Table 2, and as to the money.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business name - Business name: Urban development project (2j) - Project implementer: Defendant - Public notice of project implementation authorization: B announced on March 13, 2013; C announced on October 30, 2013; and D announced on March 5, 2014

B. Adjudication on expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Busan Metropolitan City on August 25, 2014 - Subject to expropriation: Land of each parcel number indicated in the column for “subject to expropriation” in the attached Table 2 of the Compensation Statement located in Busan-gun E: The starting date of expropriation: October 20, 2014.

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on an objection made on June 25, 2015 - Details of the adjudication: The details of the adjudication shall be as specified in attached Table 2 attached hereto.

The result of the commission of appraisal to the appraiser F of this Court (hereinafter referred to as the "court appraisal") - Contents of appraisal: The amount of appraisal shall be as shown in the column of "amount of the court appraisal" in the attached Table 2.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 through 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the result of the above appraisal commission, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The compensation for losses determined by the plaintiffs' objection ruling was insufficient in light of the compensation example of neighboring land and transaction cases, etc., and thus unfair.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the amount of compensation based on the result of the court appraisal and the amount of compensation for objection, and damages for delay.

B. As long as there are several appraisal of the same fact in a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of compensation for determination, and there is no evidence to prove that any one of them is erroneous, the court’s adoption of any one of the appraisal belongs to the discretion of the court. The court’s adoption of a court’s appraisal that judged that any of the appraisal of the land, etc. subject to expropriation of the instant case was more appropriate and reasonable

Therefore, the defendant is the difference between the compensation calculated by the court appraisal and the compensation determined by the ruling of objection of this case.