1. The Defendants jointly and severally do so to Plaintiffs A and B each of KRW 3,672,00, and KRW 54,188,800 and each of the above amounts.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: Urban development project (D; hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): The Defendants: the public notice given on December 12, 2008 by the Jeonju-si public notice on December 10, 2009 of the precedingju-si public notice by the Jeonju-si on December 29, 201, GG public notice on June 4, 2013: the Defendants.

B. The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on December 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant adjudication on expropriation”) - Land to be expropriated: Attached Form 2 “Land to be expropriated” is indicated in the column for “land to be expropriated.”

(hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”) - Compensation for losses: The phrase “compensation amount” in attached Form 1 is as indicated in the “compensation amount sheet.”

- Commencement date of expropriation: February 11, 2014

The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on May 22, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant objection”) - Compensation for losses: Attached Table 1’s “Amount of compensation” shall be as indicated in the “amount of compensation” column.

- An appraisal corporation: Each statement in the ordinary appraisal corporation, the Korea Appraisal Institute, the Korea Appraisal Corporation and the Korea Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter the above appraisal corporation shall be referred to as "each appraisal appraiser", and the results of the appraisal shall be referred to as "each appraisal appraisal", and the result of the appraisal shall be referred to as "each appraisal") / In the absence of dispute, Gap's 1 through 14, and Eul's 1 through 3 (including the number of each appraisal corporation; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The amount of compensation for losses caused by the plaintiffs' alleged acceptance ruling should be increased since it was found that the plaintiffs' wrong selection of comparative standards or failed to properly maintain good faith and thus, the compensation should be increased.

B. Each judgment and each court’s appraisal are deemed to have calculated the amount of compensation in a reasonable manner without any illegality. However, since the court’s appraisal appears to have adequately reflected various factors in the characteristics and price formation of the pertinent land, the amount of compensation for the instant land should be calculated in accordance with the court’s appraisal.

As to this, the defendant.