1. The Defendant’s KRW 79,385,070 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from November 15, 2014 to November 12, 2015.

1. Basic facts

(a) Determination (Road) of urban planning facilities - Public announcement: B of July 6, 1972 - Public announcement as an urban planning lawsuit in part of the urban planning districts of Seoul Special Metropolitan City C, D, and E area among the urban planning districts of Seoul Special Metropolitan City - Related roads: F (explosion 6m, extension 465m, time G, closing point H);

(b) Authorization and public notice of implementation plan - Project name: I road construction project (urban planning facility project) - Public notice: Public notice: October 4, 2013, the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice of the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approval and public notice of the implementation plan of J urban planning facility project - Project operator:

C. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation of September 26, 2014 - Subject matter of expropriation: K-gi-32 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The obstacles are also expropriated, but since the Plaintiff did not dispute the amount of compensation for obstacles, the part of the obstacles is omitted) - The date of expropriation: November 14, 2014 - Compensation for losses: as indicated below.

The unit price and amount of the area to be included in the land category and use status of the land to be expropriated 64,340,000 26,040,000 large-scale roads 261,426,667, 37,093,330 in aggregate 63,13,330

D. On November 4, 2014, the Defendant paid compensation for losses to the Plaintiff following the above ruling of expropriation, and the Plaintiff reserved an objection and received compensation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, 8, 9, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On the ground that it is difficult to deem that the entire land of this case was used as a site prior to the determination of urban planning facilities, the Plaintiff assessed only six square meters of the instant land as a site, and assessed the remaining 26 square meters of the land as a road and calculated the amount of compensation.

The land of this case is classified as a site, and since the entire land was used as a site before the determination of urban planning facilities, it should be assessed as a site.

The ruling of acceptance is the case.