1. The portion of the claim for compensation for losses against obstacles in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant.

1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;

A. The Plaintiff and the Selected B (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) are the same as the “instant land.” Among them, 130 square meters is a natural green belt, 43 square meters is a Class-I residential area, and 29 square meters among natural green belts are used as a road for which the Defendant was incorporated into a river business without compensation, respectively, and as a co-ownership owner of the share of 83/173 equity and 90/173 equity shares.

Plaintiff

The tree trees and warehouses, etc. on the ground of the instant land may be owned by the obstacles, such as flaps, scar trees, prone trees, etc. (hereinafter “instant obstacles”).

(b) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: D construction - Public notice: The defendant, as publicly notified E at Chicago-si on November 10, 201, and the publicly notified G on October 16, 201, and the same public notice G on April 28, 201, and H-project implementer on June 5, 201;

C. The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on April 20, 2015 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): Compensation for losses on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, etc. - Compensation for losses: The statement of “the amount of adjudication of expropriation” in the table 1 below.

(2) A public appraisal corporation: (a) A public appraisal corporation, a public appraisal corporation, and a public appraisal corporation (a public appraisal corporation, a private-Pacific appraisal corporation, and a private-use private-use private-use private-use private-use private-use private-use private-use private-use private-use private-use private-use private-use private-use private-use

D. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on objection on October 22, 2015 (hereinafter “instant ruling”) - Compensation for losses: As indicated in the column of “the amount of objection” in the table 1 below

(2) In the case of this case, among the land in this case whose status was assessed as a road, the value was assessed on the basis of “former”, which is the status of the use at the time of incorporation into the previous public works project as a site for unpaid land.

(e)the result of the commission of appraisal to the appraiser I by this Court.