1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 6,801,00, Plaintiff B’s KRW 14,512,220, and each of the said money, the Defendant from December 15, 2018 to December 2020.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project name: C Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project - Project implementer: Defendant - Public announcement of project approval (public announcement of project implementation plans): D public announcement of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 1, 2015;

B. The Seoul Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”) on October 26, 2018 - The expropriation object: Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-Ma 119 square meters and above-ground obstacles (Plaintiff A’s ownership), F large scale 129 square meters and above-ground obstacles (hereinafter collectively collectively referred to as “object subject to expropriation of this case”): The date of commencement of expropriation: December 14, 2018 - Compensation for losses: The following column of “the amount of adjudication of expropriation” is written.

- Appraisal Corporation: G and H.

C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on September 26, 2019 (hereinafter “the instant objection”) - Compensation for losses: The following “the amount of the objection” is indicated.

- Appraisal Corporation: I & J.

D. The appraisal results of this Court (hereinafter “court appraisal”) 46,06,67,70,704, 225,60,605, 260, 260, 260, 427,210, 210, 550, 550, 3500, 350, 3506, 36, 9605, 600, 37,816,60, 600, 851,000 and 446, 170, 225, 60458, 606, 605, 605, 606, 605, 605, 605, 605, 605, 605, 602, 802, 2005, 60250, 6005, 63016, 3016, 3046, 16306

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including paper numbers), appraiser K's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the compensation amount of this case is too low to the price of the subject matter of expropriation of this case, and thus does not reach a reasonable compensation amount. Thus, the defendant is justified in accordance with the court's appraisal.