1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,866,940 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from December 17, 2014 to May 30, 2017.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: A free economic zone B (II) development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public announcement: C- Business operator announced by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy on February 20, 2012; Defendant:

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on October 23, 2014 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”) - Object of expropriation: Attached Form owned by the Plaintiff

1. The “land number” as indicated in the table “land number” (hereinafter “instant land”) - Compensation for losses: Attached Form 1 (hereinafter “the instant land”) by setting the sequences “No. 1 and “No. 2”:

1. The phrase "amount of compensation for expropriation" on the list shall be appraised as "forest" the land category and current status of the land specified in the statement, and the land category and current status of the second land; the starting date of expropriation: December 16, 2014.

The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on July 16, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant objection”) - Compensation for losses: Attached Form

1. The phrase "amount of compensation for objection" on the list shall be appraised as "forest" the land category and current status of the stated amount, land category and land category of 2;

D. As a result of the court’s appraisal, each entrustment of appraisal to one appraisal corporation (hereinafter “court appraiser”) of this court, the appraiser is attached to the attached Form.

1. As indicated in the “court appraisal” sheet, ① increase in compensation for losses with respect to land No. 1, and ② calculate compensation for losses with regard to land No. 2, considering the current status of use of partial area as “the preceding”.

【In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. For the following reasons, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant expropriation ruling and the instant objection ruling fall short of reasonable compensation for losses, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay reasonable compensation for losses to the Plaintiff.

1. The second land has been actually used as farmland for about 40 years, unlike the land category entered in the public register as forest land. However, the expropriation ruling of this case and its objection are made.