(a) Business name - Project name: A waterfront development project developer (B) - Defendant - Project execution site: The defendant - Busan Gangseo-gu, D, and E members - Public Notice: F announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 14, 2012, and G publicly announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on September 5, 2014;

B. Adjudication on expropriation made by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on November 20, 2014 - Date of expropriation: January 13, 2015 - Subject to expropriation: Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Busan, and 1,250 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land to be expropriated”) owned by the Plaintiff - Compensation: To calculate the amount of KRW 910,302,40 by taking an arithmetic mean of each appraisal result of the appraisal by the Appraisal Board and the Korea Appraisal Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Appraisal Board”) (hereinafter referred to as “Expropriation Adjudication”).

C. The court’s entrustment of appraisal - Compensation - Compensation 959,546,200 won for the land to be expropriated (hereinafter “court appraisal”): - The appraisal corporation: the fact that the J (the central appraisal corporation of the stock company; hereinafter “court appraiser”) did not have any dispute about the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including the number of each branch number), the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether to increase compensation for losses;

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the appraisal of expropriation by the Plaintiff was erroneous in comparison with the individual factors, etc., and thus, the compensation for the land to be expropriated in this case should be increased according to the court’s appraisal. 2) The five appraisal firms at the stage of the Defendant’s argument acquisition and the adjudication of expropriation were assessed as 0.85 regarding the land of this case, and the difference between the administrative conditions among the individual factors was assessed as 0.85. However, only the court’s appraiser assessed the difference as 1.00.

Therefore, the court's appraisal should be assessed in accordance with the appraisal of expropriation because it erred in the decision of administrative condition among individual factors.

(b) fact of recognition 1.