1. The defendant shall be 12,342,00 won to the plaintiff A, 74,087,000 won to the plaintiff B, and 58,824,000 won to the plaintiff C and each of the above amounts.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project approval and public announcement - Project approval of urban planning facility project (D development project; hereinafter referred to as "project in this case") - Public announcement of project approval: E public announcement of Pyeongtaek-si on May 22, 2015 - Project operator: Defendant

(b) The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation (hereinafter “instant ruling of expropriation”) on March 28, 2016 - The subject of expropriation: The land “land” according to the sequence of the list of each land (attached Form) listed on the plaintiffs’ [Attachment] list, and the “each land of this case” at the time of common name): Compensation for losses: [attached Form] list: Each relevant entry - The date of commencement of expropriation - The appraisal corporation and the dialogue appraisal corporation: the Gan Property Corporation and the Telecommunications Appraisal Corporation.

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection (hereinafter “instant ruling”) on December 22, 2016 - The content of the adjudication: All of the plaintiffs’ claims for the increase in compensation for losses for each land of this case - The appraisal corporation: the Japanese Land Appraisal Corporation, the T&S Appraisal Corporation, the T&S Appraisal Corporation, the fact that there is no dispute, and the fact that there is no ground for recognition, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 8, and Eul Nos. 15 and 16 (including the serial number), and the purport of all pleadings as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Each of the instant land adjoins to a planning road (F urban planning road; hereinafter “instant road”) with a width of 12 meters. Since the instant road project is different from the instant project, the factors leading to land price increase should be reflected as a legitimate compensation for each of the instant land.

B) In the appraisal of the instant objection, G Road Construction Work’s compensation preference (H and I) was taken into account. The above compensation preference is considerably low compared to the normal transaction cases of similar neighboring land, and the normal transaction cases of neighboring similar land (i.e., Pyeongtaek-si J, the transaction date: August 21, 2014; and (ii) transaction price: 4,697,000 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s assertion”).