1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,391,90 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 19, 2016 to July 4, 2019, and the following.

1. Details of ruling;

A. Approval and Public Notice of Project - Road Project (B) - Public Notice: C Public Notice of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on August 22, 2014 - Project Operators: Defendant

B. The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on August 25, 2016 (hereinafter “instant ruling on expropriation”): 1,997 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, the Plaintiff’s ownership - The date of commencement of expropriation: The Korea Appraisal Board and E Appraisal Board (hereinafter “Korea Appraisal Board”) and E Appraisal Board

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) dated April 27, 2017 - Contents of the ruling: 231,851,700 won to increase the compensation for expropriation to 231,851,700 won - An appraisal corporation: F appraisal corporation and appraisal corporation G (hereinafter “appraisal on an objection”)

D. The result of the court’s entrustment to appraiser H (hereinafter “court appraiser”) - The appraisal result shall be assessed as KRW 237,243,600 on the instant land as the result of the court’s appraisal (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - The appraisal result shall be assessed as KRW 237,243,600 on the instant land [based on recognition] without any dispute, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (which includes the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the court’s appraisal result

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the compensation for losses for each of the lands of this case, as set forth in the Plaintiff’s objection ruling, is unreasonable, and the court’s appraisal also shows that the amount of compensation is too low. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the reasonable amount of compensation for the land of this case and the amount of compensation for its objection and the delay damages.

B. In a lawsuit involving an increase or decrease of the provisional compensation, each appraisal and each court’s appraisal and assessment, which are the basis of the ruling, do not constitute an unlawful cause in the assessment methods, and taking into account the remaining factors of the price assessment, excluding the comparison of goods, etc.