1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant (1) 100,945,301 won and its objection against the plaintiff A.

1. Basic facts

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project name: D (hereinafter “instant project”): Defendant: E ( December 31, 2008), public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (hereinafter “instant project”):

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on May 23, 2013 - The land subject to expropriation: The relevant land indicated in the column of “land compensation” in the attached Form 1 located at the time of selling the land owned by the Plaintiff A, C, and the network B (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”), and its obstacles - The date of expropriation: An appraisal corporation at sight and the national appraisal corporation at the time of selling the land owned by the Plaintiff A, C, and the date of expropriation:

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on April 17, 2014 - Compensation for losses: The same shall apply to the relevant amount indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 stating the details of compensation for land.

- An appraisal business entity: Adod appraisal corporation and central appraisal corporation;

D. The result of the market price appraisal and the entrustment of complementary appraisal by the court of first instance and this court with respect to appraiser H - Compensation for losses: The details of compensation for land attached to attached Form 1 are as stated in the “court appraisal amount” column.

E. The deceased Party B died on June 28, 2014, and the heir of the deceased Party A, the spouse of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s children, and the Plaintiff Z, AA, and AB.

[Ground of recognition] A.1 to 4 evidence, each entry (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the market price appraisal and supplementary appraisal of appraiser H by the court of first instance, the result of this court’s entrustment of appraisal to appraiser H by the appraiser of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties asserted that the adjudication compensation for each land of this case was unfairly underassessment, and in particular, the land indicated in the column of “land compensation” in the attached Form 1 is clearly changed to the “plan management area” if the land was not included in the instant project. Therefore, the amount of compensation for losses should be assessed on the premise of such change in specific use area.