(a) Business authorization and public announcement - Free economic zone development projects (O) - P project operator announced by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on September 3, 2013 - Defendant and Pyeongtaek City Corporation

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on November 20, 2014 - The details of compensation for losses [hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) - Compensation for losses: Total sum of KRW 4,411,570,940 (specific details of compensation for losses are the corresponding parts indicated in the separate sheet (the amount of compensation for losses) - The date of commencement of expropriation: The appraisal corporation on December 22, 2014 - The land appraisal corporation and the land appraisal corporation (hereinafter “land appraisal”) on dialogue and the land appraisal corporation (hereinafter “land appraisal”).

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on August 20, 2015 - Details of the ruling: An increase of compensation for each of the instant lands to KRW 4,509,924,980 in total as shown in the separate sheet of compensation for losses (the amount of compensation for losses) to KRW 4,509,924,980 in the separate sheet of compensation for losses - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation in the light of the

D. Results of the court's entrustment to Q of appraiser Q - Contents of appraisal: Evaluation of the compensation amount of each of the lands of this case as totaling KRW 4,880,293,528 (hereinafter "court appraisal") as stated in the separate sheet of compensation amount in [the amount of compensation amount] as stated in the corresponding sheet of compensation amount in the separate sheet. [The ground for recognition] Facts that no dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the result of the court's entrustment to appraiser Q Q, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result

2. Determination

A. The appraisal of expropriation and its appraisal of each of the lands of this case did not reflect the actual use of each of the lands of this case, and did not accurately reflect the gap rate of reference land of this case, and it did not take this into account even though there were ordinary transaction cases of neighboring similar lands in calculating compensation amount.