1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25,13,100 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 11, 2014 to April 21, 2016; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project name: A public notice of road project (C and (j) (2): The defendant; the defendant; the defendant; the defendant; the D 3 project operator of Gyeonggi-do public notice of August 20, 2012;

B. The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on April 17, 2014 - Land subject to expropriation: 915/1,627/1,627 of shares out of E large 712 square meters in terms of harmony (hereinafter “instant land”).

2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, each of the instant lands is referred to as “each of the instant lands” and “each of the instant lands is referred to as “each of the instant lands” and “each of the instant lands” and “each of the instant lands,” respectively.

) - 지장물 : 화성시 F 지상 창고(철골조 그라스울판넬즙 345㎡) 및 바닥포장(콘크리트 544.08㎡)(이하 이를 통틀어 ‘이 사건 각 지장물’이라 한다

(2) 2) The starting date of expropriation: Compensation for losses on June 10, 2014 - Total amount of KRW 1,111,563,470 (i.e., total amount of KRW 565,229,970 on the land 1 in this case) (i.e., KRW 546,33,500 on the land 2 in this case): 141,848,700 on a total of 141,848,700 on a warehouse (i.e., KRW 133,687,50 on the floor 8,161,200 on the floor 8,500 on a warehouse): A land appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication”) A certified public appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication”) / The purport of the entire pleadings is without dispute.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The result of the commission of appraisal to appraiser G by this court (hereinafter “court appraisal”).

(2) In light of the fact that the court’s appraisal on the land No. 2 of this case, where each of the obstacles of this case was located, a reasonable presumption is possible that the appraised value of each of the obstacles of this case would have increased at a rate similar to that of the appraised value of each of the obstacles of this case, and thus, the Defendant applied the above rate to the Plaintiff.