1. The Defendant is 5% per annum from December 18, 2012 to December 11, 2014 for each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 39,713,530 and each of them.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project name: CHousing Project (D): The defendant, publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 3, 2009

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on November 16, 2012 - The objects of expropriation shall be as specified in the column for the objects of expropriation of the compensation details table in attached Form 1;

(hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case” and individually referred to as “the land of this case” according to the lot number - Compensation: as shown in the column for the amount of adjudication on expropriation of the detailed statement of compensation in attached Table 1.

- Starting date of expropriation: - An appraisal corporation on December 17, 2012 - An appraisal corporation: a light-day appraisal corporation, a third-party appraisal corporation;

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on April 19, 2013 - The amount of compensation shall be as specified in the column for objection set forth in attached Table 1.

- An appraisal corporation: Each entry in Gap's certificate Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul's certificate No. 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of oral arguments, as a whole, that there is no dispute over the result of the appraisal in addition to the appraisal corporation at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, and the appraisal corporation at the time of the adjudication of expropriation.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The appraisal of each of the lands of this case contains an error of law that misleads the selection of a comparative standard site and its character, etc. in calculating the amount of compensation, and reflects the examples of compensation preference, etc. while the result of the court's entrustment to the appraiser F of this Court (hereinafter "court appraiser") is the result of the appraisal, and the result of the appraisal is "court appraisal".

(2) Since the compensation calculated pursuant to the above falls under a reasonable amount of compensation, the Defendant should additionally pay the difference between the reasonable compensation and the compensation determined in the adjudication to the Plaintiffs. (2) Since the G land in this case is used as a mountain site, the current status of its use is assessed as a site for stock farm, and the above company exists over the land in this case and H land.