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

On June 28, 2007, the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) designated and developed as an urban development zone under the former Urban Development Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8283, Jan. 26, 2007) the size of 350 square meters and 548,313 square meters, including each piece of land listed in the attached Table 1 through 3, Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Seoul, including each piece of land listed in the attached Table 1 through 3, and publicly announced that the Plaintiff was designated as the project implementer.

After that, on May 28, 2009, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City publicly announced that “the project implementation plan of this case shall be approved” under No. 2009-218.

The Defendant owned each land listed in the annexed list 1 to 3 of the real estate list located within the instant project zone prior to the aforementioned announcement. However, as a result of the fact-finding survey conducted by the Defendant to authorize the implementation plan of the instant project, it was found that the present status of a considerable portion of the land subject to the instant project does not coincide with the land category (road, ditch, river, etc.) recorded in the relevant

According to the results of the current status survey, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, irrespective of the land category of each land listed in the annexed Table 1 through 3, agreed that the current status shall be free of charge if it is a public facility, and that it shall be free of charge if it is not a public facility. On December 26, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant each of the land listed in the annexed Table 1 through 3, that the current status of each of the land listed in the annexed Table 1 through 3 is found not a public facility (hereinafter referred to as the “instant portion”) for purchase price of KRW 5,626,056,90.

On December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff paid the above purchase price to the Defendant. On January 27, 2010, the Plaintiff completed each registration of ownership transfer on the ground of consultation on acquisition.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 to 5, and Eul evidence 1 to 7 are numbers.