1. According to the claim that was changed in exchange in this court, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 14,095,90 and this shall apply.

1. Basic facts

(a) Project name: B urban development project name (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”);

2) Project implementer: Defendant 3 Notice: Notice E of October 19, 2012

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on June 23, 2016 (hereinafter “instant ruling”) subject to expropriation (hereinafter “adjudication”) 1): The land subject to expropriation (hereinafter “instant land”) is the land subject to the Plaintiff’s KRW 1,549 square meters owned by the Plaintiff.

(2) 2) The date of commencement of expropriation: the appraisal institution: F. G. and the G 4. Compensation for losses: The following table:

The above ground containers 50,000 above ground containers 50,000,000 above ground containers of 356,270,000,000 above ground of this case (portable toilets, etc.) 100,000 above ground - above ground 130,000 above ground pop 130,090,000 above ground - ground trees (i.e., mulberry trees, etc.)

C. On December 22, 2016, the Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection (hereinafter referred to as “the instant objection”) (hereinafter referred to as “the appraisal decision”), and the appraisal result thereof (hereinafter referred to as “the appraisal decision”), dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection based on the appraisal result as set forth in the following: An appraisal corporation H and I3: An appraisal corporation: the appraisal value as specified below. The appraisal value of the instant land is as follows. The appraisal value of 356,270,000 above ground container 50,000 above above ground container 30,000 above above ground container (port toilets, etc.) 3,090,000 above ground container (130 weeks), 3,090,000 above ground number (7 weeks above ground for recognition), and 4,6,9,47, and 1000 above ground number (hereinafter referred to as “the entire appraisal number of the instant land”) / [the purport of each evidence number included in the pleading number]

2. The land at J is located in an area where flood damage is frequently caused by the Plaintiff’s assertion appraiser’s comparative standard. Therefore, it is inappropriate to determine the comparative standard of the land of this case. The land located at K in the original city as the land located within the planned area for housing site development was located within the planned area for a long time and thus the sales price of the said land was the land owned.