1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,410,640 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 28, 2017 to January 8, 2019, and the following.

1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;

(a) Business title - Business title: C Housing redevelopment project (D; hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public Notice: The E/, Jun. 2, 2015, Ansan City Public Notice E, Jun. 21, 2015 - The project developer F, Jun. 2, 2015, the Defendant:

B. The ruling of expropriation made on June 12, 2017 by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on expropriation - Land subject to expropriation: During Gyeyang-si, G G 196.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and each obstacles indicated in the list of obstacles (attached Form 1 / [Attachment 1] (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): The starting date of expropriation: July 27, 2017 - Compensation: 49,774,290 won (=the land of this case 431,79,200 won)

C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on April 26, 2018 (hereinafter “instant objection”) - Compensation for losses: KRW 524,557,810 (=Land 456,113,520)

D. Results of appraiser H’s appraisal (hereinafter “court appraisal”): The result of the court appraisal: KRW 474,524,160 for the instant land (However, since the instant obstacles were all removed due to the progress of construction works by the project of this case as to the instant obstacles, the appraisal of the instant obstacles was impossible to conduct the appraisal of the instant obstacles). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the court appraisal, the whole purport of the pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the instant land, the appraisal in the instant objection ruling is erroneous in selecting a comparative standard, etc., and the appraisal and court appraisal in the instant objection ruling are excessively low compared to the transaction cases of neighboring similar land.

B. As to the obstacles of this case, the ruling on the objection of this case is unfair by evaluating excessively low compensation for the obstacles of this case.

C. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to reasonable compensation for losses and objection of this case to the plaintiff.