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

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name - Urban planning facility project (No. 2010-176, April 15, 2010; No. 2012-505, April 1, 2012; No. 2013-113, Apr. 1, 2013; Defendant:

(b) The ruling of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Gyeonggi-do on May 13, 2013 - Land subject to expropriation: Each land indicated in the attached Form of Compensation (hereinafter “each land of this case”): The date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on June 28, 2013 - An appraisal corporation, future appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal”): The fact that there is no dispute on the ground of recognition”)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff’s legitimate compensation is based on the adjudication and appraisal of each of the lands of this case is based on the evaluation of individual factors, and thus does not reach a reasonable amount of compensation. The result of the market price appraisal of appraiser A (hereinafter “court appraisal”) by this court.

(2) The Defendant’s individual factors (other conditions) during the Defendant’s court’s appraisal at the court’s appraisal conducted on each of the instant land, unlike the appraisal conducted on 1.00, assessed as 1.15 by the appraiser on the difference between the comparative standard and the other conditions in relation to the individual factors, but there was no ground to support such difference. Thus, the part of the court’s appraisal at the court’s appraisal was based on the arbitrary appraisal conducted by the court’s appraiser, and thus, is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

(c) the possibility of development of the land subject to compensation per se.