(a) recognition and public notice of the project - Project name: B road construction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): Public notice - On October 14, 2009, the project implementer, such as C, etc. publicly notified by the Daejeon Regional Construction and Management Administration: Daejeon Regional Construction and Management Administration.

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on October 23, 2014 - Subject matters of expropriation and compensation for expropriation: The following Table 1:

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands” and the combination of obstacles and goodwills shall be referred to as “the instant obstacles, etc.”). Of 40/201 equity of 7,278,160 E large scale 167 square meters, 6,93,680 aggregate of 14,211,840 obstacles, such as D ground buildings, facilities, etc., 98,536,250 aggregate of 19,713,30 square meters of D-ground buildings, facilities, etc., 118,249,580 square meters of 40/201 equity of 40/201 equity of 167 square meters of 167 square meters of the original land in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun-gun, Chungcheongnam-do. Do. The date of expropriation: Certified Public Appraisal Corporation, Korea Appraisal Corporation, Korea Appraisal Corporation, Korea Appraisal Corporation, December 16, 2014

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on March 26, 2015 - The details of the objection made - The appraisal corporation shall be dismissed - The certified public appraisal corporation, the certified public appraisal corporation, the certified public appraisal corporation in charge of the dispute resolution (based on recognition), the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1, 2 (including each number), Eul’s evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of all pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The amount of compensation for loss caused by the Plaintiff’s assertion and adjudication for expropriation was assessed excessively undermining the difference because the Plaintiff’s wrong selection of comparative standards or failed to properly satisfy his/her claims. Thus, the Defendant shall pay the difference between the compensation reasonably fixed and the compensation determined in the adjudication and the appraisal by the court appraiser.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of one compensation, each appraisal agency’s appraisal and the court appraiser’s appraisal, which are the basis of the adjudication on expropriation, have no illegality in the assessment methods, and the remaining factors for price assessment, excluding individual factors and vision, are consistent with each other, but only with regard to individual factors and vision.