1. The Defendant’s KRW 67,692,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 18, 2015 to January 19, 2017.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notification 1) Project name: A public notification of project approval and development project B (2) on January 17, 2013, and D3 project operator of the same public notification on December 4, 2015: Defendant;

B. Land to be expropriated on May 29, 2015 by the local Land Tribunal of Gyeongnam-do: Each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”)

2) Compensation for losses: 2,329,073,500 won in total: the Korea Appraisal Board and the Korea Appraisal Corporation;

(c) Compensation for losses: The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s total amount of compensation for losses on May 26, 2016: KRW 2,329,582,00: The Central Land Appraisal Corporation and Samwon Land Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal”) collectively; the amount of compensation calculated by taking an arithmetic mean of the results of the appraisal; and the amount of compensation calculated by taking an arithmetic mean of the results of the appraisal (hereinafter “adjudication”).

D. 1) Compensation for losses as a result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal: 2,397,274,000 won in total: appraiser E (hereinafter referred to as “court appraiser”) (hereinafter referred to as “court appraiser,” and the result of the appraisal is referred to as “court appraisal”); there is no dispute; Gap evidence 1; Gap evidence 1; Eul evidence 4 through 6 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); the court’s entrustment of appraisal to appraiser E; and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the appraisal of the parties concerned has errors in the assessment of the compensation amount for each of the lands of this case, such as errors in the comparison of individual factors, etc., so that the compensation amount for each of the lands of this case should be increased according to the court appraisal.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that there is no error of law in the appraisal of the ruling, while the court appraisal of the F land in Kimhae-si does not have an indivisible relationship with the G land for the purpose of use, and there is an error of law in the appraisal of the complex, and in the selection of a comparative standard of the F land

B. The court’s appraisal is a complex.