1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs each amount and each of them stated in the "comfort" column in the attached Table 2 list.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - General Industrial Complex Project (A development project; hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - Gangwon-do public notice B on October 14, 2013, and Gangwon-do public notice C on December 17, 2014 - Project operator: Defendant

B. The Gangwon-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on August 28, 2015 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): Land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) - Compensation for losses: The term “adjudication of expropriation” listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto is as follows.

- The date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on September 29, 2015 - An appraisal corporation: a dialogue appraisal corporation, a central appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal of expropriation”) and a central appraisal corporation.

C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on May 26, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant objection”) - Contents of the adjudication: Attached Table 2 “the amount of the objection” is as stated in each corresponding entry.

- Certified public appraisal corporations: Japanese certified public appraisal corporations and foreign certified public appraisal corporations (hereinafter referred to as “interestd appraisal”)

D. Results of appraiser D’s appraisal (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - Contents of appraisal: The term “court appraisal” in attached Table 2 is as indicated respectively.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), the result of appraiser D's appraisal, the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The amount of compensation for losses for each of the lands of this case for which the plaintiffs' assertion was made by the expropriation ruling of this case and the objection ruling was unfair because the amount of compensation for losses for each of the lands of this case was considerably less than the market price of each of the above lands. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiffs the difference between the expropriation ruling of this case and the damages

B. In the lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for expropriation 1, both the result of the adjudication and the result of the court’s appraisal are not unlawful.