1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 24,735,300 and KRW 12,502,30 among them, the Defendant shall pay KRW 24,735,300 from September 12, 2015, and KRW 12,23,00.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business name and public notice - Business name: E-Urban planning facility project: Defendant - Public notice of project implementation authorization: The Seoul Special Metropolitan City published on November 29, 2007; Yeongdeungpo-gu published on July 10, 2014; and H published on January 29, 2015;

B. Adjudication on expropriation made on July 24, 2015 - Date of expropriation made on September 11, 2015 by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City: The term "date of commencement of expropriation" in the attached Table 1 attached hereto means each land and obstacles made on September 11, 2015 - Compensation: The term "date of appraisal of expropriation" in the attached Table 1 attached hereto shall be the same as the relevant part in the relevant attached Table 1.

C. Adjudication on expropriation made on October 30, 2015 by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City: The date of expropriation: December 18, 2015 - Land and obstacles in attached Table 1, the date of commencement of expropriation of which is December 18, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land” and “in this case’s obstacles” in attached Table 1, each of the obstacles in attached Table 1, the date of commencement of expropriation of which is December 18, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “in the attached Table 1, the individual land shall be specified by the sequence in attached Table 1): Compensation: The term “the result of appraisal of expropriation” in attached Table 1, as described in each of the relevant parts.

D. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on May 26, 2016 - Compensation for the appraisal result (B) as stated in the attached Table 1: - An appraisal corporation: - An appraisal corporation: the Pacific appraisal corporation; the appraisal corporation; the appraisal corporation; the appraisal corporation; the appraisal corporation; the appraisal corporation; the foreign appraisal corporation; the appraisal corporation (hereinafter “Objection”); the appraisal corporation; the appraisal corporation; the appraisal of the said appraisal (hereinafter “Objection to the appraisal”); the appraisal result’s appraisal; the “appraisal of the objection”); the appraisal result’s appraisal result’s appraisal”); the fact that there is no dispute over the pertinent appraisal result; the evidence Nos. 1 through 6; the evidence No. 1 and No. 1 (including each number if any); and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The appraisal result of the plaintiffs' objection is unfair by excessively lowering the land and obstacles of this case. Thus, the defendant shall pay the difference between the reasonable compensation according to the court appraisal result and the plaintiffs.