1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,327,394,190 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 4, 2009 to June 10, 2010 for the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - B development projects - Public notice of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 11, 2007, D and June 19, 2008 of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice of D and E on July 3, 2008;

B. The adjudication of expropriation made on February 13, 2009 by the local land expropriation committee of the Seoul Metropolitan City on February 13, 2009 - 2,959 square meters of F forest land in Gangnam-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) and 139 copies of trees, such as Gaz trees, flaz trees, flaz trees, and flaz trees on the ground owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant trees”): 4,031,880,500 won [4,007,965,500 won (the instant land)] - The date of commencement of expropriation: April 3, 2009

The Central Land Tribunal made an objection on June 18, 2009 - Details of the adjudication: 4,330,346,450 won [4,305,492,950 won (the instant land) 24,853,50 won (the instant item] increased compensation for losses.

[Reasons for Recognition]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the instant land, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) as to the instant land, the instant general residential area was the first general residential area, and the first general residential area was a second-class general residential area pursuant to the subdivision. However, if the instant land was not determined as a park site which is an urban planning facility for the direct purpose of implementing the instant project, it would have become a third-class general residential area like the surrounding land if it was not determined as a park site which is an urban planning facility. Therefore, in calculating compensation for losses for the instant land, the comparative standard site should be selected as a standard land within the general residential area (class 3 general residential area) by assuming that there is no limitation in

Nevertheless, the appraisal of the land in this case was selected as a comparative standard place with the comparison standard place with the land in general residential area (class 1 general residential area at the time of price) and assessed as a forest with no restriction on the park site and a forest with the status of use.

Therefore, the appraisal of this case is the case.