(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: B (3) Housing Site Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): Defendant: C public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 31, 2008; D public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 5, 2012; E public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 24, 2012;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on May 23, 2013 - Subject to expropriation: F head of the Si/Pacific City F 674 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) - Compensation for losses: 660,958,100 won - Commencement date of expropriation: July 16, 2013

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on July 18, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication”) - Details of the adjudication: Increase of compensation for losses in KRW 677,370,000.

D. As to the instant land, the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser G (hereinafter “court appraiser G”) by the appraiser G - The result of the appraisal is 705,138,800 won: The compensation is 705,138,800 won [founded grounds]; the evidence No. 1-2 and the evidence No. 3-1 and No. 3-2; the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser G; the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The compensation stipulated in the Plaintiff’s objection ruling falls short of the reasonable compensation for losses. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 27,768,80, which is the difference between the amount of compensation determined by the court’s appraisal and the judgment on objection, and damages for delay.

B. In a lawsuit involving an increase or decrease in land expropriation 1 compensation, each appraisal agency’s appraisal and appraisal selected by the court, which form the basis of the adjudication, do not constitute an unlawful ground for the assessment method. In light of the remaining factors for price assessment other than individual factors, in a case where the appraisal is consistent with one another’s view, but there is a little difference in the appraisal result due to a somewhat different difference in the individual factors, insofar as there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in any of the individual factors comparison among them, one of them is selected.