(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project name: B development project (IV) - Authorization of implementation plan: March 12, 2015 - Project operator C publicly notified on March 12, 2015 - Defendant;

B. Adjudication on expropriation made on February 26, 2016 by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City: The date of commencement of expropriation: April 15, 2016 - Items of obstacles listed in the separate sheet of obstacles (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): 54,880,000 won

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection on December 22, 2016 - Compensation for expropriation: KRW 58,840,00, 588,840,00 for the ground of recognition, the fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 9, and 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The amount of compensation set forth in the objection ruling as to the plaintiff's alleged obstacles falls short of reasonable compensation because the kinds, quantities, and specifications of trees are not properly reflected in the affected items, and thus the defendant shall pay increased compensation in accordance with the result of the appraisal conducted by the court to the plaintiff.

B. In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for expropriation, where both the appraisal by each appraisal institution and the appraisal by a court appraiser, which form the basis of the ruling, do not constitute an unlawful ground for the method of appraisal and there is no evidence to find that there is a special error in the content of the appraisal, the more trust in any of the appraisal results belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14779 delivered on June 29, 1993). In full view of the following: (a) evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, and 15-2 of the evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, and 15-2 of the evidence Nos. 8-1, and (b) the overall purport of the pleading as a result of appraiser D’s appraisal (hereinafter “court appraisal result”), each appraisal based on which an objection was made is based (hereinafter “object of appraisal”) and the court appraisal result are different from the amount of appraisal; (c) however, in the case of obstacles other than trees, the structure, use status, size, life, management status, etc. of the obstacles, and the type, type, shape, and size of trees in the case of trees.