2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Railroad construction project authorization (B) - Public notice of project implementation authorization: The defendant: the defendant; the defendant; the defendant: E public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 23, 2009, E, the same public notice of the same public notice of March 8, 201, and the same G of May 16, 201;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation (the first ruling of expropriation) on September 26, 2013 - The Plaintiff and H-owned Plaintiff and H are co-owners of the first and second expropriation land, and their share ratio is Plaintiff 2/5 and H 3/5.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

The date of expropriation shall be 161m2, J gas station site, 742m2, K gas station site, 155m2 and its ground-related obstacles: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2481, Nov. 19, 2013>

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on November 21, 2013 (the second ruling of expropriation): The plaintiff and H owned the land subject to expropriation: 1,862 square meters of L gas station site, M gas station site, 1,640 square meters of M, and its ground obstacles - content of the ruling: The second expropriation land and its ground obstacles; the claim for expropriation of the second expropriation land and its ground obstacles; the claim for expropriation of 2,452 square meters of N gas station site and its ground obstacles at the time of racing shall be rejected; the date of commencement of expropriation; January 14, 2014.

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on August 21, 2014 - Details of the ruling: The claim for increase in the compensation for the land expropriateds Nos. 1 and 2, and the rejection of the claim for expropriation of N station site 2,452 square meters and its ground obstacles at the time of racing [based] is without dispute, entry in evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the business compensation equivalent to the profit from the lease of the building, on the grounds that: (b) the Plaintiff, while operating and leasing the rest stores, such as convenience stores, restaurants, car centers, billiard centers, gas stations, and general office rooms, at the size of 2,452 square meters, and at the size of 847 square meters of the O gas station site, which is the remaining land for the first and second expropriations; and (c) the Plaintiff could not be caused by the instant project.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The Plaintiff’s assertion for determination is for public services.