2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

(a) Project approval and notification 1): B Project name (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”);

2) Public notice of authorization for project implementation: Defendant: C public notice of Ma on March 20, 2015; D public notice of Ma on August 18, 2015; and E public notice of E on August 23, 2016: Defendant

B. The Plaintiff’s business - The business of growing mushrooms from the Essung City F incorporated into the instant project site

C. The Plaintiff’s business compensation portion - Compensation for losses: 12,793,000 won in the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on August 28, 2017 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”):

D. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on June 21, 2018 (hereinafter “instant objection”) - Dismissal of the Plaintiff’s application for business compensation

(e) Results of the appraisal by the appraiser G (hereinafter “court appraiser”) – Compensation for losses for the Plaintiff’s business compensation: 12,132,00 won (applicable to recognition), the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 4, the result of the appraisal by the appraiser G, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The compensation amount for the Plaintiff’s business loss under the adjudication on expropriation of this case’s assertion is considerably less than the Plaintiff’s business profit and expenses incurred from the transfer of the place of business. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 corresponding to the difference between the legitimate business compensation due to the closure of business and the above compensation amount, and the delay damages.

B. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. 1) Closure compensation for business closure is determined by the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act”).

The grounds falling under Article 46 (2) 1 are recognized only when it is impossible or significantly difficult to move the relevant business to another place within the location of the business office or within the neighboring Si/Gun/Gu, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is that the Plaintiff is an adjoining area.