(a) Business title - Electric Power Source Development Business (E Power Source Development Business) - Project operator: Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) - Public notice of implementation plan: F Public notice of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy on January 31, 201

B. The Defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Defendant Committee”)’s ruling on the use on June 22, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant ruling on the use”): The object of use: The entries in the evidence No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments in Gwangju-si, in which the Plaintiffs shared one-third shares, between 42m2 and 77m2 in the airspace of 591m2 in size (hereinafter “instant land”): 2,482,200 won in each of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “adjudication”): The date of commencement of use: (a) the fact that there is no dispute on August 16, 2012; (b) the entry in the evidence No. 1 and No. 2; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination as to a claim against the Defendant Committee (main claim)

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the land of this case differs from the cadastral boundary that the defendant Corporation used as the basis for the use of the land because there is a problem of cadastral disagreement, and the cadastral boundary is different from the actual boundary. Even though the area of the land incorporated as the project of this case was not verified accurately, the defendant Commission's disposition of the use ruling of this case without resolution

B. Determination 1 on the principal safety defense by the Defendant Committee) The Plaintiffs asserted the increase of compensation rather than the illegality of the instant decision on use. The lawsuit seeking the increase or decrease of compensation is to be the Defendant pursuant to Article 85(2) of the Public Works Act, and the Defendant Committee, which is the ruling authority, asserts that the lawsuit against the Defendant Committee is unlawful, since it is not the Defendant’s qualification. 2) The Plaintiffs asserted that the amount of compensation should be increased against the Defendant Corporation as seen earlier. At the same time, the Defendant Committee made a decision on the use of this case against the Defendant Corporation.