1. The part concerning the claim for compensation of remaining land in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant is KRW 64,150 and also the plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business Approval and Notice - Road Projects (B Road Construction Works, 8 (j) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Project”) - D- Project Operators published on August 11, 2008, - On September 10, 2012, - Defendant

B. The adjudication of expropriation on January 23, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication of expropriation”) - The object of expropriation: Gyeongbuk-gun, Gun, Gun, Do, Do, 127 square meters, F 727 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and obstacles, such as the ground toilets, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “in the instant obstacles”): The starting date of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on March 18, 2014 - An appraisal corporation: Daeil-il, Inc., Ltd. - Compensation Corporation: Compensation for losses - An appraisal corporation: 44,146,80 won for the instant land; 10,165,00 won for the instant obstacles; 54,311,800 won in total.

C. Decision on October 23, 2014 (hereinafter “Objection”) - An adjudication by increasing the amount of compensation for the Plaintiff to KRW 5,655,650 (the instant land 45,220,650, and the instant obstacles 10,435,000): An appraisal corporation, the Pacific appraisal corporation, and one appraisal corporation;

D. The court’s entrustment of appraisal of the instant land to appraiser G (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - If the instant land is assessed as “refising”: 45,284,800 won - If the instant land is assessed as “parking lot”, the compensation for losses: 63,169,300 won; 63,169,300 won; 63,169,300 won; 63,169,300 won; 1 through 5 (including each number); 2; the court’s entrustment of appraisal to appraiser G; and

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the instant land is used as a parking lot, it should be assessed as a parking lot depending on the situation of land use. However, the appraisal of the instant objection is assessed as “responding” and calculated compensation for losses. The Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the difference between the reasonable amount of compensation and the amount of compensation for objection. 2) The Plaintiff should be paid further.