(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: Housing site development project (B district; hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Defendant: Public notice given by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 31, 2008, C public notice by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 24, 2012, D public notice by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 24, 2012, E E public notice by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 29, 2013;

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on December 19, 2013 - Land to be expropriated: G 3,956 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”): G at the time of strike (hereinafter “instant land”): Compensation for losses: KRW 718,211,800: The date of commencement of expropriation: February 11, 2014 - The appraisal corporation: the land appraisal company at the price of the dispute resolution and the land appraisal company at the time of the resolution of expropriation (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”)

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on September 25, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) - Compensation for losses: 723,948,00 won - An appraisal corporation: A certified public appraisal corporation which has agreed to sell and purchase a loan (hereinafter “an appraisal”) [based on recognition] / No dispute, Party A’s statement Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The amount of compensation for loss of the Plaintiff’s respective arguments and the court’s appraisal should be increased, since it was judged that the amount of compensation for loss was mistakenly selected as a comparative standard or because it was not properly assessed as a result.

B. The materials submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the amount of reasonable compensation exceeds the amount assessed at the court’s appraisal, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Meanwhile, it appears that both the appraisal and the court appraisal have calculated the adequate amount of compensation without any illegality in the assessment methods. However, since the court appraisal seems to reflect the characteristics of the land and the factors of the price formation more properly, the amount of compensation for the land of this case shall be calculated in accordance with the court appraisal.

Therefore, the court's appraisal.