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

A. Approval and public notice of the project - B Housing Redevelopment rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) - Public notice C of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 19, 2008 (hereinafter the same shall apply), public notice D on May 21, 2009, public notice E on February 1, 2010, public notice E on October 11, 201, public notice on October 13, 2012, G on June 13, 2013, public notice H-project implementer: Defendant

B. The Seoul Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation (hereinafter “instant ruling of expropriation”) on October 24, 2014 - The subject matter of expropriation: The Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seongdong-gu, I located in Seongdong-gu (hereinafter “instant building”): The date of commencement of expropriation - Compensation for losses: December 12, 2014 - The fact that there is no dispute over KRW 10,363,680 [based on recognition], the entries in evidence A1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. An appraisal based on which the Plaintiff’s assertion was based did not comply with the relevant laws and regulations regarding the method of calculating compensation for the building.

In addition, on January 30, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building in KRW 86,00,000, and the compensation for adjudication on the instant building is merely about 12%, the instant building is adjacent to the subway 5 Line J, and other surrounding commercial districts, etc., the compensation for adjudication was excessively low in consideration of the fact that the instant building is adjacent to the subway 5 Line J, and other surrounding commercial districts.

B. In a lawsuit seeking increase in compensation for loss, the burden of proving that the amount of reasonable compensation exceeds the amount of compensation stipulated in the ruling of expropriation or the ruling of objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2255, Nov. 28, 1997). The statement of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 alone with regard to the building of this case exceeds the amount of compensation recognized in the ruling of expropriation of this case.

or the appraisal based on the above expropriation ruling is not deemed unlawful, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Plaintiff is aware of the appraisal report and the present state of the instant building, etc. conducted at the stage of the instant expropriation ruling.