1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: Private investment project (B) (hereinafter “instant project”); and area related to the said project (hereinafter “instant project”): Defendant - Public notice of project implementation authorization: Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on June 5, 2012;

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on August 20, 2015 - The date of expropriation: the obstacles listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “in this case”) owned by the Plaintiff - Compensation: Total amount of KRW 286,531,450 - An appraisal corporation: a Flad Public Appraisal Corporation, a stock company, a joint appraisal appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisals on expropriation”) (hereinafter “appraisals on expropriation”): The appraisal is referred to as “appraisals on expropriation”).

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on July 21, 2016 - Compensation for an objection made by the person who made an objection on July 21, 2016 - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation: A corporation and the Korea Appraisal Board [based on recognition] shall have no dispute; entries in Gap’s 1, 10, 11, and Eul’s 1 through 3 (including each number in case of additional numbers); and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was running restaurant business by building or planting obstacles in the name of the plaintiff F after changing the land category of the land from the area of the land D and E to the answer, and then operating the restaurant business in the name of the plaintiff. The above restaurant business was closed. The defendant recognized only compensation for obstacles in the project of this case. However, the appraisal of the expropriation decision is illegal by assessing the obstacles in the case, and the compensation for the total amount of KRW 918,763,80 shall be paid in accordance with the appraisal report of the G appraiser's office at the request of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant should pay the plaintiff 632,232,350, which is the difference between the appraisal and the appraisal report of the above G appraiser's office, and the above difference between the appraisal report of the G appraiser's office and the appraisal report of the land.