1. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance, including the claim extended by this court, is as follows:

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Project approval and announcement 1) Project name: C Public Housing Project (hereinafter “instant project”);

2) A project implementer: A public notice of authorization to implement the project of the Defendant (the name is changed from EP on September 1, 2016 to Seoul Housing and Urban Corporation) (the name is changed from EP to EP): D public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 26, 2010.

B. On March 26, 2015, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation (hereinafter “the instant ruling of expropriation”): The object of expropriation: May 19, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant ruling of expropriation”): Compensation of 132С in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”): Compensation of 46,26,000 square meters: 46,26,000 won: Gyeong-il appraisal corporation, a national appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisals”) (hereinafter “an appraisal of expropriation”) and a national appraisal corporation (hereinafter “the result of the appraisal of expropriation”)

C. Compensation by the Central Land Tribunal on December 17, 2015 (hereinafter “instant ruling”): 46,767,600 won: Each entry in the appraisal corporation and the Korea Appraisal Board (hereinafter “Appraisal Board”) on December 17, 2015, and the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) one appraisal corporation and the Korea Appraisal Board (hereinafter “Appraisal Board”); (b) the results of the appraisal; (c) the results of the appraisal; and (d) the results of the appraisal of the appraisal; and (e) the appraisal panel and the Appraisers on the expropriation (hereinafter “appraisals”) have no dispute; (d) the facts that there is no dispute; (e) evidence Nos. 1 through 4; and (e) evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of branches; hereinafter

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's appeal is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal since the plaintiff won the whole judgment in the first instance.

B. Since an appeal is intended to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself, in principle, an appeal against a judgment rendered in favor of him/her is not allowed. However, the interests of the party who won the entire winning case cannot be absolutely denied with respect to a single subject matter of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da3063, Jun. 28, 1994).