1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,790,450 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 18, 2013 to January 28, 2015, and the following.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project name: A project implementer for a construction project for a military master (Korean-do 4 lines): Defendant 3 on September 16, 2008; No. 2008-194, Sep. 16, 2008;

B. A person subject to the adjudication of expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on October 24, 2013 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): B large scale 214 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, Gunsan-si.

) The articles indicated in the separate sheet and attached sheet (hereinafter “the subject matter of this case”), and the land of this case and the subject matter of this case collectively shall be “the subject matter of this case’s land.”

(2) Compensation: 407,404,050 won: 3) The date of commencement of expropriation: 4 December 17, 2013: the Korea Appraisal Corporation and the Korea Appraisal Corporation;

C. Subject to the adjudication of expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on March 20, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant adjudication”): Compensation 2: 408,015,450 won: The Korea Appraisal Board and the Korea Uniform Appraisal Board (hereinafter “instant Appraisal Board”) (hereinafter “instant appraisal Board”) shall be 4 appraisal firms, and the result thereof shall be hereinafter “adjudication”).

(ii) [Grounds for recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 9 (if any, including all numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The judgment on the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser C by this court (hereinafter “court appraisal”) did not make an adequate evaluation on the utilization plan of the instant land, etc., the location, shape, environment, and the current use of the land. In addition, the Defendant calculated the amount of compensation by applying the abnormal low compensation example without properly reflecting the transaction cases of similar neighboring land. As such, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the amount of compensation by increasing the amount stated in the purport of the claim, which is part of the difference between the reasonable compensation and the instant adjudication compensation.

(b).