1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - An urban planning facility project (construction for the construction of an apartment urban planning facility (large scale store), construction for an urban planning facility project before alteration (market 11), and public notice (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): The Defendants: the Defendants, in the case of the Defendants, under the public notice given at Chicago-si on December 19, 2014, No. 2014-399, Sept. 6, 2016, No. 2016-380, and No. 2016-427, Oct. 14, 2016.

B. The ruling of expropriation by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on June 12, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “instant expropriation ruling”): The object of expropriation: 36-4m2,347m2, 347m2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”): 469,40,000 - Compensation date: 469,400m2: July 27, 2017 - An appraisal corporation between appraisal corporations and appraisal corporations, and an appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal of expropriation”)

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) dated March 22, 2018 - The content of the ruling: Determination to increase the amount of compensation for the Plaintiff’s expropriation to KRW 479,140,050 - An appraisal corporation: The appraisal corporation and the appraisal appraisal corporation substitute appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal”) as a result of the appraisal

D. Results of the appraiser A’s appraisal (hereinafter “court appraiser”) - Contents of the appraisal: The appraiser’s appraisal of the instant land at KRW 469,400,000 (which refers to “court appraisal”) - The appraiser’s appraisal of the instant land at KRW 469,40,00 (which refers to grounds for recognition) without dispute; Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4; Eul’s evidence No. 1 (which includes each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); the appraiser A’s appraisal results; the entire purport

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that compensation for losses for the land of this case, which was determined by the ruling on the objection of this case, is unfair because it considerably falls short of market price.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the reasonable compensation and the compensation for losses and the compensation for losses incurred therefrom.