1. The remaining land of each land listed in paragraph 6 of the annexed Table No. 6 of the annexed Table No. 1 of the Plaintiff H, I, and J of the Agricultural Company.

1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;

(a) Business name - Business name: Railroad construction project (construction project, project for construction of double-speaking iron, project for chemicalized construction; hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - Project operator: Defendant

B. Determination by the Central Land Expropriation Committee - Subject to the compensation for loss: Each obstacle listed in Paragraph 2 of the attached Table 1 owned by Plaintiffs A, B, C, E, F, H, I, and the Agricultural Company J-limited Liability Company (hereinafter “J”) located within the instant project zone, and the business loss listed in Paragraph 3 of the same Table of Plaintiff G (However, each dismissal decision was made on the claim for compensation for loss of the remaining values listed in Paragraph 4 of the same Table of Plaintiffs A, B, C, and F) - The date of expropriation is as listed in Paragraph 5 of the attached Table.

- Compensation: The phrase "amount of adjudication on expropriation" in attached Schedules 1 to 4 shall be as the same.

C. The result of appraiser K’s appraisal (hereinafter “the result of the instant court appraisal”) and the result of the court appraisal conducted on August 29, 2017: The result of the court appraisal conducted on March 20, 2017 is indicated as “the result of the court appraisal conducted on August 29, 2017: The same shall apply to each “the amount of the court appraisal” listed in the separate sheet.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The compensation determined by the plaintiffs' common place acceptance ruling is unfair because it is not too low in assessing the compensation for each of the lands of this case, each of the obstacles of this case, and business losses, or it is not recognized as compensation for losses due to the depreciation of the remaining land. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the difference between the reasonable compensation for losses and the compensation for losses as determined by the expropriation ruling.

(The details of the plaintiffs' specific claims shall be as shown in the attached Form). (b)

Plaintiff

B, H, and I’s individual note 1) Each remaining land listed in paragraph 4 of the separate sheet owned by Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff B’s respective remaining land”).

The project in this case is incorporated into a railroad protection zone due to the implementation of the project in this case.