(a) Business name 1) Project approval and public notice: Project operator 2) Project approval and public notice of the Park Construction (B Park): C public notice of Pool City on April 19, 2013, and D public notice of Pool City on July 24, 2014;

B. On October 24, 2014, the date of adjudication of expropriation by the Jeonnam-do Local Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “instant land”): The date of commencement of expropriation, based on the arithmetic average of the appraised values assessed by two appraisal business entities, 11,435,750 won: December 15, 2014, the date of expropriation:

(1) On February 26, 2015, the filing date of an objection by the Central Land Expropriation Committee: The details of the Plaintiff’s objection: (a) the actual use of the instant land is “miscellaneous land”; (b) the actual use of the instant land is deemed “miscellaneous land”; and (c) the compensation for losses for the instant land should be raised in line with the reality.

3) Contents of the objection: The evaluation of the current status of the use of the land of this case as "the whole" and the calculation of compensation for losses for the land of this case was proper, and the rejection of the objection (based on recognition) is without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (if available, each statement including each number, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for the instant land was set at a lower level without due consideration of the neighboring land price, etc., the amount of compensation for the Plaintiffs should be increased as much as the difference between the amount of compensation appropriately calculated by the appraisal conducted by this court (hereinafter “court appraisal”) and the amount of compensation determined by the expropriation ruling.

3. In a lawsuit concerning an increase or decrease of compensation for expropriation, each appraisal and appraisal based on which acceptance and objection are based and each appraisal and appraisal and appraisal by a court appraiser do not constitute an unlawful cause in the assessment methods and do not rest after excluding the comparison of goods and services.