1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,031,760 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 1, 2017 to October 12, 2018, and the following.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice thereof - Project name: B housing redevelopment project - Public notice of project approval: Defendant on April 18, 2016, C public notice of the Southern-gu Seoul Metropolitan City on April 18, 2016, and D public notice of Daegu-gu on February 27, 2017 - Project implementer:

(b) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation by September 25, 2017 - Land Expropriation: Daegu-gu E site (hereinafter “instant land”) and its obstacles - Compensation adjudication on expropriation: Total sum of KRW 399,120,240 (see the following table): - Land Appraisal Corporation on November 30, 2017: F. G.

C. As of September 25, 2017, which was the date of the court’s appraisal commission to H, the adequate value of the instant land and obstacles was assessed as KRW 422,152,00 in total, as indicated below, as the result of the court’s appraisal commission to H of this Court.

Section 346,192,00 won 361,647,00 won 15,45,000 won for the land of this case, 52,928,240 won for the total of KRW 60,505,00 won 7,576,760 won for the land of this case 39,120,240 won 42,152,00 won 23,031,760 won for the land of this case / [3] The fact that there is no dispute between the court’s appraisal (Ⅱ) and the court’s appraisal (Ⅱ), and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a member of the I religious organization, and the Plaintiff operates a personal inspection of “J” on the instant land.

However, the plaintiff was unable to operate the temple any longer due to the expropriation of the land of this case and its obstacles due to the execution of the defendant's public works.

In addition, it is difficult to move the Buddhist services and other Buddhist services within the temple, or the relocation of such services and services has become impossible to use them for its original purpose.

In addition, the project implementer usually compensates for temples registered with I religious organizations at a considerable level in consideration of various circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant does not consider these circumstances at all, on the sole ground that it conforms to the relevant laws and regulations formally.