1. The Defendant’s payment on August 12, 2014 to the Plaintiffs as indicated in the separate sheet on the details of compensation.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business name: An urban development project (M district urban development zone (1) - Public announcement of the designation of an urban development zone: N in the Busan Metropolitan City public announcement on March 13, 2013,O on October 30, 2013, and P in the same notification P on March 5, 2014

(b) Project operator: Defendant;

C. The Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”) on June 16, 2014 - Land subject to expropriation: Each lot number indicated in the column for “subject to expropriation” in the attached compensation statement in Q Q, located in the Busan District of Q, (hereinafter “subject to expropriation”): The starting date of expropriation: August 11, 2014 - Compensation for losses for the subject land to be expropriated in the instant case: The same is as indicated in the “Adjudication amount of expropriation” in the attached compensation statement.

The Central Land Tribunal made an objection on April 23, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant objection”) - Contents of the objection: The details of the objection shall be as specified in the “amount of the objection” column in the attached Table of the details of compensation.

E. The result of the Court’s entrustment to the appraiser R (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - Contents of appraisal: The content of appraisal is as indicated in the “court appraisal amount” column in the annexed monetary rewards list.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 12, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the result of the above entrustment of appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' compensation for losses under the decision of this case was erroneous in calculating the gap rate of individual factors such as street conditions, access conditions, and environmental conditions in comparison with the comparative standard, and it was so underassessment in light of surrounding land.

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. In a lawsuit concerning increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, there is no illegality in the appraisal methods by each appraisal agency and the court appraiser’s appraisal methods, which serve as the basis for the relevant ruling.