1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,697,750 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 16, 2014 to February 19, 2016.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business recognition and public announcement - Business name: A waterfront development project (IIIj) - Public announcement: C publicly announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of December 14, 2012 - A project developer: Defendant;

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation as of May 22, 2014 - The amount of compensation shall be 317,464,850 won - The date of expropriation shall be July 15, 2014 - The Gyeonggi-gu Busan Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “each land of this case”): The Plaintiff’s Gangseo-gu and 426 square meters (hereinafter “each land of this case”) - The Appraisal Corporation and the Uniform Appraisal Corporation: the Gyeong-il Appraisal Corporation and the Uniform Appraisal Corporation.

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on June 25, 2015 - Amount of compensation: 320,561,750 won - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation for a stock company; a central appraisal corporation for a stock company; and an appraisal corporation for a stock company; and the purport of all pleadings as a whole, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, and 2 (including each number of branches if any) and the statement

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion acceptance ruling and its objection appraisal corporation did not closely examine various correction factors under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the land use plan and current status, etc., and assessed excessively undermining the compensation for each of the instant land as determined by the expropriation ruling and its objection ruling, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the difference between the compensation duly fixed and the compensation determined in the appraisal by the court appraiser’s appraisal and assessment.

B. In a lawsuit concerning an increase or decrease of one compensation, each appraisal agency’s appraisal and the court appraiser’s appraisal, which are the basis of the adjudication on expropriation, have no illegality in the appraisal methods, and there is no illegality in the appraisal methods, and the remaining factors for price assessment, excluding the individual factors and vision, are identical with each other, but where there is a difference in the appraisal results due to a somewhat different difference in the appraisal results, one of them is adopted as far as there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in the individual factors and vision of one appraisal.