1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff KRW 13,152,780 and KRW 10,000 among them, from June 8, 2017, and KRW 3,152.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) A business name - Business name: A project name: A project implementation site for a cret City Urban Planning Facility (B Corporation; hereinafter “instant project”): C 11,945 square meters in cret City: C 11,945 square meters in cret City - A public announcement of project approval for the Defendants - A public announcement of cret City on December 22, 2015, and E public announcement of cret City on July 20, 2016

(b) Decision on expropriation made on October 4, 2016 by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal: - The date of expropriation: November 18, 2016: Each land indicated in the column for “subject to expropriation” in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff located in the instant project area (hereinafter “instant land”) and obstacles - An appraisal corporation: A land appraisal corporation, a light appraisal corporation, a light appraisal corporation, and a free appraisal corporation.

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on April 27, 2017 - Compensation: The land appraisal corporation’s central appraisal corporation, the appraisal corporation’s general appraisal corporation, the appraisal corporation’s general appraisal corporation, and the Plaintiff’s general appraisal corporation’s general appraisal corporation’s general appraisal corporation, as indicated in the attached Table “as the Plaintiff only contests the compensation of the instant land as a result of the appraisal of the instant judgment.”

(d) Results of the appraisal by the appraiser F (hereinafter “court appraiser”) - The results of the appraisal by the court: The assessment by the court appraiser F (hereinafter “the results of the appraisal by the court”): the attached Table “The results of the appraisal by the court, as indicated in the column, 474,195,600 won [the grounds for recognition] does not have any dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul evidence 1 to 3; Eul evidence 1 to 3; the court appraiser’s results of the appraisal by the court; the whole purport of the pleadings;

2. The amount of compensation determined by the adjudication on objection as to the land of this case alleged by the plaintiff is too low, and thus, the defendants are jointly liable to pay the plaintiff the difference between the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication on objection and the amount of compensation for delay.

3. In a lawsuit concerning increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, each appraisal that forms the basis for adjudication and the court appraiser’s appraisal.