1. The defendant shall make to the plaintiffs each of the money recorded in the item column for the prize amount by plaintiff in the attached Table 1 list and each of the above money.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Housing Site development project name (AB zone (hereinafter referred to as the "instant project"): Defendant: AC published by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 31, 2008, AD published by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 5, 2012, AE published by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 24, 2012;

B. Decision of the Central Land Tribunal on May 23, 2013 - Land subject to expropriation: Each land and obstacles indicated in the attached Table 2 of the compensation details owned by the Plaintiffs - Compensation amount: The same shall apply to each relevant amount indicated in the attached Table 2 of the compensation details.

- Commencement date of expropriation: July 16, 2013 - An appraisal corporation: a national appraisal corporation of a stock company, a corporation or a corporation at sight;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on April 17, 2014 - Compensation amount: The same shall apply to each relevant amount indicated in the separate sheet of compensation details in attached Table 2.

- An appraisal business entity: The facts that there is no dispute over the central appraisal corporation, the corporation A-I-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Each land indicated in [Attachment 2] Nos. 1, 4 through 12-1, 17 through 45 on the order of land in the annexed Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

As it is clear that a specific use area would change to a “plan management area,” if it is not incorporated into the instant project, it should be assessed on the premise of the change in such specific use area. Of the issues of the instant land, the amount of compensation for losses should be assessed on the premise of the change in the specific use area. Of the instant land, the amount of the court’s supplementary appraisal as to each land indicated in Attached Table 2 Nos. 6, 7 (Plaintiff G ownership), 8, 9 (Plaintiff H ownership), 12, 12-1 (Plaintiff H ownership), 17 through 25 (Plaintiff N ownership), 28, 29 (Plaintiff P ownership), 30, 31 (Plaintiff Q ownership), and 43 (Plaintiff Q ownership) is considerably low in light of the actual transaction price of neighboring land or the compensation election, and thus, the amount of compensation in Attached Table 2) is unlawful.