1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5,793,750; (b) KRW 7,238,00 to Plaintiff B; (c) KRW 19,758,400 to Plaintiff C; and (d) KRW 25,297 to Plaintiff D.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: H development project (Nonsan I): The defendant on December 14, 2012

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on May 22, 2014 - Land subject to expropriation: Each land indicated in the column for “land subject to expropriation” in the separate sheet on the details of compensation owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each land of this case”) - The starting date of expropriation: The amount of compensation on July 15, 2014 - The amount of compensation shall be as specified in the separate sheet on the details of compensation.

- An appraisal corporation: one appraisal corporation and the Korea Appraisal Board;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on February 26, 2015 - Amount of compensation: The “compensation for objection” in the attached Table of the details of compensation shall be as stated respectively.

- An appraisal corporation: Each entry and the whole purport of the arguments in Gap's 1 through 4, 6, 7, 8, and Eul's 1 through 4 (including each number of branches in the case of a serial number), and an appraisal corporation, a large appraisal corporation, and a large appraisal corporation (based on recognition)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As a result of an error in the process of selecting comparative standard land and evaluating individual factors, the Plaintiffs’ assertion and ruling of acceptance and objection made by the appraisal corporation are deemed to fall short of the compensation for each of the lands of this case, which is not consistent with the principle of equity with the surrounding land. As such, the Defendant should pay the difference between the compensation reasonably fixed and the compensation determined in the appraisal by the court appraiser’s appraisal.

B. In a lawsuit concerning an increase or decrease of one compensation, each appraisal agency’s appraisal and the court appraiser’s appraisal based on the expropriation ruling do not have any illegality in the appraisal methods, and the remaining appraisal factors except for the individual assessment factors are identical with each other, but there is a difference in the appraisal results due to a somewhat different difference in the appraisal results, among them, one of the individual factors of the appraisal.