1. The Defendant’s KRW 573,090 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest from March 4, 2017 to September 6, 2017 and the next day.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project approval and public notice - Project name: Hanam-si Maintenance Project (B) - Public notice: C public notice on September 16, 2014; D public notice on February 17, 2015; and E public notice on December 9, 2015;

B. The ruling of expropriation made by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on May 30, 2016 - Subject to expropriation: F farm site 3.5 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”), G farm site 65.8 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant 2 land”), and compensation for losses: 22,747,50 won (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”): The date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation, the date of the resolution of the appraisal company, and the appraisal company, the date of the resolution of the resolution of the appraisal company, the appraisal company, the date of the resolution of the resolution of the appraisal company.

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection (hereinafter “instant ruling”) dated January 19, 2017 - Compensation for losses: 23,006,410 won - An appraisal corporation: A certified public appraisal corporation, a certified public appraisal corporation, a certified public appraisal corporation, and a certified public appraisal corporation, a certified public appraisal corporation, and a certified public appraisal corporation, a certified public appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal”) shall be referred to as “appraisal

D. The court’s entrustment of appraisal to appraiser H (hereinafter “court appraiser” and “court appraisal”) - The appraisal result is deemed to be “the land of this case”: 64,862,420 won in total of each of the lands of this case - Where the land of this case is deemed to be “road”: The aggregate of KRW 23,579,500 in total of each of the lands of this case / [the grounds for recognition] is not dispute; Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-3-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-2-1, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On the grounds delineated below, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the compensation for losses of each of the instant lands was unfairly underassessment, and thus, the court’s appraisal sought the difference between the reasonable compensation for losses and the compensation for losses determined by the expropriation ruling and the compensation for losses

1. The land of this case 2 is similar to the entry in the public register, and its current status falls under the roads for the entry into the stock farm site or the stock farm site.