1. The Defendant’s KRW 99,785,80 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from July 20, 2016 to May 25, 2017.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project approval B - Public notice of project approval: C by the Office of Education of Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, March 18, 2016;

(b) Project operators: The superintendent of education of Chungcheongnam-do;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on May 26, 2016 - The date of expropriation: The date of expropriation: Each real estate indicated in the column for “real estate” in the attached Table attached to the Plaintiff’s ownership (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) - Compensation for losses by sequences: The amount indicated in the column for “the result of appraisal of expropriation” in the attached Table attached to the attached Table attached hereto.

(d) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on October 27, 2016 - Compensation for losses: The amount indicated in the column of “the result of the appraisal of an objection” in the attached Table attached hereto - An appraisal corporation: Daejeon District Court, Daejeon (hereinafter “Tagsan Appraisal”) with the certified public appraisal corporation, Daejeon District Court, Inc. (hereinafter “Tagsan Appraisal”), and the Chungcheong branch office of the Japanese certified public appraisal corporation (hereinafter “Japanese branch office”).

E. The details of the Plaintiff’s receipt of compensation - KRW 4,73,741,00 on June 17, 2016 (i.e., compensation for adjudication of expropriation) - KRW 54,760,50 on November 7, 2016 (i.e., compensation increased in the adjudication of expropriation) / [based on recognition] without a dispute, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul’s evidence Nos. 8, 9, 12, and 13 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion asserts that “The instant lawsuit is unlawful, as the Plaintiff received the increased amount of compensation under the adjudication of expropriation on June 17, 2016 without indicating the intent of reservation, since it received the increased amount of compensation in the adjudication of expropriation on November 7, 2016, without having indicated the intent of reservation.”

B. According to the evidence, witness D’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, when the Plaintiff files a claim for compensation following the adjudication of expropriation, the Plaintiff clearly stated in the written claim for compensation for the land and received compensation on June 17, 2016. The fact that the Plaintiff received compensation for expropriation on June 17, 2016. However, the time when the Plaintiff files a claim for increased compensation according to the said adjudication.