1. On July 13, 2017, the Defendant’s ruling of acceptance on the obstacles indicated in the attached list that the Plaintiff rendered shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of ruling;

(a) project approval and notice - Project name: C- - Public Notice D of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on June 2, 2014

(b) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on July 13, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant ruling of expropriation”): obstacles entered in the B large scale 542 square meters and the attached list in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun-gun-gun, and the date of commencement of expropriation - The date of commencement of expropriation: September 5, 2017 - Owners of the real estate register on the house register among obstacles at the time of the ruling of expropriation: the network E - the owner’s name on the house register among obstacles at the time of the ruling of expropriation

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on November 23, 2017 – The Plaintiff raised an objection against the adjudication of expropriation by demanding the change of the owner’s name of the obstacles, etc., but the said Committee did not determine the change of the owner’s name on the ground that it is not a matter of adjudication by the Land Tribunal. The said Committee made an objection against the partial change of the compensation for losses without making a determination on the change of the owner’s name. The fact that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition, each entry in Gap’s evidence No.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Among the obstacles of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the housing built and resided in around 1974 by the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) and died on September 14, 1995, the housing was occupied by the deceased’s wife F while residing in the housing. Although the Plaintiff did not own or possess the obstacles of this case, the adjudication of expropriation made by recognizing the Plaintiff as the owner of the obstacles was unlawful.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above-mentioned evidence, Gap evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 13, the witness G's legal statement and the entire purport of oral argument, it is reasonable to deem that the part concerning obstacles in the instant confinement ruling is unlawful. Thus, this part of the acceptance ruling should be revoked.

① The Deceased shall grant a building permit around 1974 with respect to housing units among the obstacles in the instant case.