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

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 9,768,200 and this shall apply.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - B Expressway - Private Investment Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) - C publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 4, 2012 - Project operator: Defendant (competent authority: Busan Regional Land Management Office)

B. On February 20, 2014, the Central Land Expropriation Committee: (a) divided the instant land into the instant land and the instant land on June 19, 2013; (b) divided the instant land into the land and the remaining land on September 16, 2013, the land category of each of the instant land and the remaining land was changed from “the “the fish farm” to “the fish farm” on September 16, 2013.

- Subject to expropriation: ① Land to be expropriated in Yongcheon-si, ② Land to be expropriated in the instant case, ② Land to be expropriated in the instant case and 87 obstacles, such as pine trees, warehouses, drainage pipes, etc. (hereinafter “in the instant obstacles”): Compensation for losses: 22,11,80 won of the instant land to be expropriated, and 71,705,840 won of the instant obstacles, - Contents of adjudication: The Plaintiff’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim for expropriation of the remaining land of this case (no consultation with the project executor), the Plaintiff’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for business loss of both fishing grounds (no report-free business), and the date of expropriation (no consultation with the project executor) - An appraisal corporation: the Korea Appraisal Corporation, the Korea Appraisal Corporation, the Korea Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “Expropriation”) (hereinafter “Expropriation”)

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on the objection (hereinafter “the ruling”) dated July 17, 2014 - Contents of the ruling: The Plaintiff’s assertion as to each of the following arguments. ① The assertion as to the expropriation of the remaining land of this case is determined to be able to be used for the original purpose due to a growing area of the remaining land, and ② the assertion as to the compensation for the fish farm after evaluating the land of this case as “fish farm”: The rejection of the claim as to the closure of the fish farm; ③ the claim for compensation for the closure of the fish farm business was already assessed as the fish farm at the time of the ruling on expropriation; and ③ the claim for compensation for the closure of the fish farm business was operated without filing