1. The Defendant: 39,181,950 won to Plaintiff A; 28,394,190 won to Plaintiff B; 39,294,000 won to Plaintiff C; and 1,386.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business approval and public notice - Business approval for the Bogeumjari Housing District Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the "Projects in this case"): Defendant on December 3, 2009, No. 2009-1139, and No. 2010-243, Apr. 27, 2010, publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 2010-243:

(b) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on October 19, 2012 - Each land subject to expropriation: The details of compensation indicated in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “each land of this case”): Compensation for losses: as stated in the column for the amount of adjudication of expropriation in attached Form 1 - The starting date of expropriation: December 12, 2012 - An appraisal corporation: a dialogue appraisal corporation, a mutual appraisal corporation, a mutual appraisal corporation, and a mutual appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal for expropriation”) (hereinafter “an appraisal of expropriation”) and an appraisal corporation, a mutual appraisal corporation, and a mutual appraisal corporation (hereinafter “an appraisal of expropriation”).

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on July 18, 2013 - Compensation for losses: As indicated in the column for the objection among the details of compensation in attached Form 1 - An appraisal corporation: Central Appraisal Corporation, a stock company, and a Gao Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as “adjudgment appraiser”), and the arithmetic mean of the results of the appraisal (hereinafter referred to as “adjudgment appraisal”).

D. The court’s entrustment of appraiser H to appraiser H (hereinafter “court appraiser”) - The result of the appraisal is “court appraisal,” and the result of the appraisal is referred to as “court appraisal” - Compensation: The fact that there is no dispute about the basis of recognition / [applicable] as stated in the court appraisal column among the details of compensation in attached Form 1; Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2; Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply]; the result of the court’s entrustment of appraiser H; the whole purport

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the 1st Plaintiffs’ assertions that each of the lands of this case and the compensation amount for losses under this ruling were excessively underestimated, the Defendant added the difference between the reasonable compensation amount and the above compensation amount according to the court’s appraisal result to the Plaintiffs.