1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,909,400 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from February 15, 2012 to September 2, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project name: A public notice of project name and project name: A public notice of project for the development of a village of electric power sources in the B district (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): public notice of the Dui-gun on November 17, 201, and public notice of the Dui-gun on November 24, 2011

B. The object to be expropriated on December 21, 201: The date of expropriation of real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) and obstacles (hereinafter “in the instant obstacles”): February 14, 2012 (the arithmetic mean of the third appraisal corporation and the third appraisal corporation): Compensation for the instant land shall be calculated as KRW 26,897,180, and compensation for the instant obstacles shall be calculated as KRW 217,937,90.

On July 20, 2012, the Central Land Expropriation Committee of this case (the arithmetic average of the appraisal corporations and the Korea Land Expropriation Corporation): Compensation for the land in this case shall be 278,508,900 won, and compensation for the obstacles in this case shall be 257,919,700 won (hereinafter “appraisal of this case”).

According to the result of each appraisal of this Court, the market price of the land of this case at the time of the adjudication of expropriation of this case is 331,141,820 won, and the market price of the obstacles of this case is 263,465,750 won.

(hereinafter “First Court Appraisal.” According to the court’s entrustment of appraisal with the appraiser F, the market price of the instant land at the time of the instant expropriation ruling is KRW 286,418,300, and the market price of the trees among the obstacles of this case is KRW 10,098,90.

(hereinafter “Second Court Appraisal”). / [Ground for Recognition] A] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the result of each commission of appraisal to appraiser E and F by this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of objection made an error in the assessment of individual factors while comparing the land of this case and comparing the standard place of comparison, and the assessment of the correction of other factors also.