1. As to KRW 217,459,940 among the Plaintiff and KRW 200,00,000, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 217,459,940. From October 28, 2014 to March 18, 2016.

1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;

(a) Authorization and public notice of project - Road project (public notice by the second section of the expressway project - Public notice: Defendant: C public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on March 21, 201, C, D public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on August 12, 2011;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on September 25, 2014 - Land subject to expropriation: The land subject to expropriation is as indicated in the “land” column in the attached Table.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands,” and the individual lands are specified as Dong and lot numbers, and the land located in E-dong among each of the instant lands is “the instant E-dong land” and “the instant F-dong land” as “the instant F-dong land”). - Compensation for losses: As shown in the attached Table, “the amount of adjudication on expropriation” shall be included.

- Commencement date of expropriation: October 27, 2014

Adjudication on an objection made by the Central Land Tribunal on January 21, 2016 - Compensation for losses: The phrase "amount of the said adjudication" shall be as specified in the attached Table.

(hereinafter referred to as “the amount of this ruling”) . - An appraisal corporation: A certified public appraisal corporation, Pacific appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal”) / [based on recognition] the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the appraisal of the current status of the Fdong land in this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the part of the Fdong land in this case, which appears to have been reclaimed as “former”, among the Fdong land in this case, has been used as “former” at the time of price change by obtaining permission for reclamation, and thus, it should be evaluated as “former” at the time of price change. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the current status should be evaluated as “forest” since the land category in the public register of the Fdong land in this case is “forest” and the current status of the Fdong land is changed by form and quality without permission. (ii) The principle of the current status appraisal and the burden of proving an illegal change of form and quality.