1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name - Project approval and public notice - Project approval and development project for the future industrial complex (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case") - Project operator: Naju Mayor - Notice No. 2008-141 (hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Project Approval Notice") of Jeonnam-do on July 11, 2008;

B. The adjudication of expropriation made on November 2, 2012 by the Jeonnam-do Regional Land Tribunal of Korea on expropriation - Land for expropriation - Each land listed in the table of annexed Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “land subject to expropriation”, and each land shall be specified as the relevant lot number) and its ground obstacles - The amount of expropriation compensation: The calculation of the amount of expropriation compensation, as described in the column of compensation for expropriation on the table of annexed Table 1, based on the arithmetic mean of the respective appraisal results of two appraisal business entities - the date of commencement of expropriation: December 17, 2012.

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on April 19, 2013 - The amount of compensation for expropriation: The amount of compensation for expropriation shall be calculated, as described in the column of compensation for expropriation on the attached Table 1, based on the arithmetic mean of the values of the results of each appraisal by two appraisal business entities.

D. The result of the market price appraisal conducted on November 27, 2013 by the court appraiser at the court of first instance (hereinafter “court appraisal”): Compensation for losses: The calculation of compensation amount as stated in the table of compensation in the table of attached Table 1 on the list of objects to be expropriated / [based] is without dispute; Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (including each number); the result of commission of the market price appraisal conducted by the court of first instance to H

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s land category E was 3,738 square meters of the above land, the land category of which is “forest” (hereinafter “land to be reclaimed”) and completed the development project with authorization from the Defendant for the implementation of the development project, and the form and quality of the land to be reclaimed was legally changed from “forest”;

B) The former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (Act No. 9442, Feb. 6, 2009) separate from authorization for the implementation of a project for the land to be reclaimed by the Plaintiff.