1. The defendant shall pay 130,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit: 9.0

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business title - Business name: Rural Road Improvement Project (B Road Packing Project) - Public Notice: February 6, 2015 - Project implementer C publicly announced in the following cities: Defendant;

B. Adjudication on expropriation made on February 26, 2016 by the Provincial Land Tribunal of Jeollabuk-do: 65 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”): The date of commencement of expropriation owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”): March 28, 2016: 1,846,000 won (28,400 square meters)

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on April 21, 2016 - Compensation for expropriation: KRW 1,904,500 (29,300,000) [based on recognition]; the fact that there is no dispute; entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the market price of the E, E, 348 square meters and F, 408 square meters in size around October 21, 2009, which was 60,600 square meters per square meter around October 21, 2009; (b) although the land and the land price of this case are almost similar to the officially announced land price, the above expropriation ruling and its objection ruling were erroneously calculated on the amount of compensation for the land of this case; (c) so, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,939,00,00, which is the reasonable compensation for the land of this case calculated on the unit price of 60,600 square meters and the amount of compensation of KRW 1,904,500, the amount of compensation under the said ruling shall be paid to the Plaintiff.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of appraiser G’s appraisal, ① the land use status of the instant land is being used as “former” like its land category, and the primary special-purpose area is a natural green area; ② the land category in the public account is the land category in the e-si, the city of 348 square meters and the F large scale 408 square meters, which the Plaintiff is subject to market comparison; and the current utilization status is used as the site of unregistered detached houses. As the sale price includes the price of unregistered detached houses, it can be recognized that the sale price is not pure land price.