1. The Defendant: (a) from July 27, 2018 to Plaintiff A, KRW 2,840,00 for each of the KRW 15,843,850 for Plaintiff B and C, and each of them.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) recognition and publication of the project - Name of the project: Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (D Park Admission Area) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): Defendant - Project implementation authorization for the project: The public announcement of Ansan City on May 27, 2015

B. The ruling of expropriation by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on April 30, 2018 (hereinafter “the ruling of expropriation in this case”) - The objects subject to expropriation: F. 284 square meters in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu and the attached list thereof (the Plaintiff’s sole ownership), G miscellaneous land 284 square meters in size (the Plaintiff’s land co-ownership with 1/3 shares; hereinafter the same shall apply) - The starting date of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on July 26, 2018: H and I Co.,, Ltd.

C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on November 22, 2018 (hereinafter “instant objection”) - Plaintiff A’s compensation for losses: KRW 905,013,30 (i.e., KRW 217,733,30 of the F land’s equity interest in G land KRW 687,280,000), and KRW 36,407,450 of the obstacles - Plaintiff B, C compensation for losses: KRW 217,73,330, respectively - An appraisal corporation and K&A

D. The appraiser L in this Court’s appraisal result (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - Plaintiff A’s compensation for losses: (i) F land’s share of KRW 698,640,00 in G land amounting to KRW 220,573,330; (ii) obstacles amounting to KRW 38,051,30; (iii) Plaintiff B, and C compensation for losses amounting to KRW 220,573,30, respectively; (iv) without any dispute; (v) Gap evidence Nos. 4; (iv) Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number); (v) appraiser L’s appraisal result; and (v) the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' objection of this case and the court's appraisal of this case are excessively low compared to the actual compensation cases in neighboring areas, and they did not properly reflect the individual factors of each land of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of each claim stated in the claim and damages for delay to the plaintiffs.

B. The lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation for one determination.