1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 27,722,80 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 295,110 for Plaintiff B; and (c) for each said money, from December 21, 2016 to December 2017.

1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;

(a) Business title - Business title: C Business Name (D; hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Defendant

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on September 29, 2016 - Subject to expropriation: Each land indicated in the column for “subject to expropriation” in the attached table owned by the Plaintiff located within the instant project zone (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case,” and each land is specified only by E parcel number) and the obstacles owned by the Plaintiff B listed in the attached table attached thereto (hereinafter referred to as “in this case’s obstacles”): Compensation indicated in the attached Table “compensation for Expropriation” column.

C. Results of the appraiser F’s appraisal (hereinafter “the result of the court appraisal”) - The result of the court appraisal: It is as indicated in the column of “court appraisal compensation” in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, appraiser F's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' alleged acceptance and adjudication compensation is unfair by evaluating excessively low value of each land of this case and the obstacles of this case.

In particular, each of the instant lands shall be deemed to be “road,” not “franchising land,” and the land category G and H in each of the instant lands shall be deemed to be “site.”

Therefore, the defendant should pay the difference between the reasonable compensation and the compensation according to the result of the appraisal of expropriation.

3. Determination

A. The court’s appraisal result is deemed to have no illegality in calculating the amount of compensation for each land of this case and the obstacles of this case lawfully based on the officially announced value of comparative standard land as prescribed by relevant statutes, such as the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor. As such, the court’s appraisal result should be adopted by a court that reflects the characteristics of each land of this case and the obstacles of this case in detail and appropriately determining

Furthermore, according to the result of the court appraisal, each of the lands of this case is linked to the packaging road.