1. The defendant

A. The Plaintiff A’s KRW 13,593,857 as well as 5% per annum from March 26, 2013 to March 17, 2016.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Construction works for natural gas supply facilities (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public notice E on February 23, 2012 - Business operator E on February 23, 2012 - Defendant

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation made on February 22, 2013 - Subject to expropriation: F 5,986 square meters in Gangnam-si, G field 7,154 square meters, H field 63 square meters in G field, 5,939 square meters in I forest, and 218 square meters in J before the date of expropriation: The date of commencement of expropriation: March 25, 2013.

On March 19, 2013, K 10,106 square meters in Gangnam-si were divided into 4,120 square meters in K and 5,986 square meters in F, and 17,058 square meters in Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si, into 11,19 square meters in L and 11,19 square meters in land and 5,939 square meters in land, respectively, on the same day.

With respect to the land of 11,19 square meters and K 4,120 square meters (hereinafter “the remaining land of this case”), Plaintiff A owns 3/7, Plaintiff B, and C own 2/7 shares, respectively.

On February 26, 2015, the Central Land Tribunal claimed the Defendant for compensation for decline in the value of the remaining land of this case, but filed an application for compensation with the Central Land Tribunal on December 29, 2014 as the Plaintiffs did not reach an agreement with the Defendant.

On February 26, 2015, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling dismissing the plaintiffs' application on the ground that there was no loss of price decrease in the remaining land of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 21, and 21 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs asserted that since some of their owned land was incorporated into the instant project site and the value decline occurred in the remaining land of this case, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the loss.

The defendant asserts that the transportation conditions of the remaining land of this case before and after being transferred to the project site of this case are identical, and that the value of the remaining land of this case is not reduced because there is no particular influence on residential and farming environment

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

C. (1) Determinations. Public services.

A person shall be appointed.