1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,900,200 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 28, 2014 to February 23, 2016, and the following.

1. Details of the ruling

(a) Business name: Public announcement of construction works of natural gas supply facilities (B) 2: The defendant;

B. Subject to expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on September 25, 2014: The land subject to expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on September 25, 2014 (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) shall be D 968 square meters and E 996 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

2) Compensation for losses: The phrase “compensation for expropriation” in the separate sheet on the details of compensation is as indicated.

3) Commencement date of expropriation: subject to expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on October 27, 2014 (No. 1) on June 25, 2015:

B. 1) As indicated in subparagraph 2, compensation for losses: As indicated in the separate sheet of the details of compensation, the phrase “award compensation” is as indicated.

3) An appraisal corporation: the Korea Appraisal Board and the Korea Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Objectioned Appraisal Board”).

A person shall be appointed.

D. As a result of the court’s appraisal of this case, the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to the Japanese and Japanese appraisal corporation (hereinafter “court appraiser”, and the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal is referred to as “court appraisal”) is as indicated in the “court appraisal amount” column of the attached Form No. 1 of compensation details.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the result of the commission of appraisal to the ordinary appraisal corporation of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a case where each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each of the court appraiser are not unlawful in the assessment methods, and there is no other's opinion in view of the remaining price factors except for the comparison of goods and services, but there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in the comparison of goods and services of a certain appraisal and assessment, unless there is any evidence to prove that there is an error in the comparison of goods and services of a certain appraisal and assessment, the more trust in any one of them within the discretion of the fact-finding court

Supreme Court Decision 200