1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,280,026 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 18, 2013 to June 24, 2015.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: A Bogeumjari Housing District Development Project (B; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): Defendant: C public notice by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 3, 2009, D public notice by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 27, 2010, E public notice by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 17, 2012;

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on February 22, 2013 - 64 obstacles, such as housing located in the City (hereinafter “in this case”) - From the date of expropriation: April 17, 2013 - Compensation: 200,368,000 won - An appraisal corporation: A national appraisal corporation, a stock company, and a third appraisal corporation;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on November 21, 2013 - Dismissal of the results of the ruling: - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation: Gyeong-il appraisal corporation, a new appraisal corporation in the future (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal of a ruling,” collectively with each appraisal corporation at the time of an expropriation ruling and its ruling, and the result of the appraisal is referred to as “appraisal of a ruling

D. The court's entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser G (hereinafter "the above appraiser" and "court's appraisal") - The appraisal of the obstacles of this case: 203,541,00 won: The appraisal value of the obstacles of this case was 203,541,00 won and there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply), the court's entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser G, the whole purport of the arguments, as a whole.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The compensation for the obstacles of this case as determined by the expropriation ruling falls short of the reasonable compensation for losses. As such, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the difference between the reasonable compensation for the obstacles of this case and the compensation amount as determined by the expropriation ruling. 2) Since the Plaintiff resided in a residential building incorporated into the instant business and moved out of the instant business district, the Defendant acquired land, etc. for public works and paid compensation to the Plaintiff.