1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,782,286,120 as well as 5% per annum from September 24, 2013 to November 4, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: A project to develop the Bogeumjari Housing District (the fifth Bogeumjari Housing Project (the fifth project); hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): A public notice given by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 2009-1139, Apr. 27, 2010; No. 2010-243, Apr. 27, 2010; Defendant:

B. The Plaintiff’s petition for adjudication, etc. 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s land for factory 97,624 square meters in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Plaintiff owned and used the instant land as the Plaintiff’s factory site. When the instant land was designated and publicly announced as the instant project district, the Defendant, the operator of the instant project, consulted with the Plaintiff for the purchase of land. 2) The Plaintiff operated a fertilizer manufacturing business, etc. in the instant project district outside 18 lots of land (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s factory site”). The Defendant had the Korea Comprehensive Engineering Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Comprehensive Engineering”) conduct an investigation in order to verify the level of soil contamination of the Plaintiff’s factory site in the process of the said purchase. The Korea Comprehensive Engineering would have the Defendant be required to pay approximately KRW 10,513,00,000 (including value-added tax) for the purification of soil contamination of the Plaintiff’s factory site (hereinafter “the instant amount”).

3) An appraisal corporation which is an appraisal corporation for the purchase by consultation, a corporation with the aim of buying through consultation, a new appraisal corporation, a corporation with the future appraisal corporation, and the Korea Appraisal Board (hereinafter “consultation Appraisal

In calculating the amount of compensation for the Plaintiff’s factory site, including the instant land, the Plaintiff selected the method of deducting the expected treatment cost of this case from the appraised value of the Plaintiff’s factory site. 4) The Plaintiff determined that the purchase cost calculated by the Defendant did not reach a reasonable compensation, and did not comply with the Defendant’s consultation.