1. The Defendant’s KRW 268,282,350 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 15, 2014 to June 15, 2016.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - B (hereinafter “instant project”) - C publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on June 5, 2012 - Project operator: Defendant

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on August 21, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant ruling of expropriation”) - Compensation subject to expropriation, and compensation for expropriation: 265,674,150 square meters for the land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) - The date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation for public appraisal corporations and an appraisal corporation for public appraisal corporations (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”) and the Korea Appraisal Board for the appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”) for the result of appraisal (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”).

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) on March 26, 2015 - The details of the instant ruling on an objection: Increase the compensation for land expropriation to KRW 289,582,650 to KRW 289,52,650; - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation: (a) An appraisal corporation; (b) an appraisal corporation; (c) an appraisal corporation; (d) an appraisal corporation; (e) an appraisal corporation; and (e) an appraisal corporation; and (c) an appraisal corporation; and (d) an appraisal corporation; and (e) an appraisal of the outcome of the appraisal / [based on recognition] without any dispute; (d) evidence A and evidence

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion appraiser selected the land different from the road traffic conditions of the instant land as a comparative standard and did not fully reflect the current status of neighboring transactions and the example of compensation, thereby unfairly underassessment of the compensation for the instant land. The Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the difference between the reasonable compensation for losses and the compensation for losses as stipulated in the court’s appraisal, and the compensation for losses incurred therefrom. 2) The Defendant’s assertion on the compensation for the difference between the compensation for losses and the compensation for losses as stipulated in the judgment of the court’s appraisal was lawfully assessed as stipulated in the relevant statutes. The selection of the comparative

B. The land of this case, which was recognized, is the land of this case.