1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,876,740 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 19, 2014 to February 15, 2016.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) A project approval and public announcement - A project name: A waterfront development project (third party) - Public announcement: C publicly announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 14, 2012 - A project operator: The defendant;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on September 25, 2014 (hereinafter “instant adjudication on expropriation”) - The object of expropriation is as indicated in the column of “conceptive objects of expropriation” (hereinafter “conceptive objects”) of the details of compensation in the attached Form.

- From the starting date of expropriation: Amount of compensation on November 18, 2014 - Amount of compensation: KRW 71,161,860 (detailed details are as stated in the separate sheet of compensation in the annexed sheet of compensation) - An appraisal corporation: An ordinary appraisal corporation for corporations and a uniform appraisal corporation for corporations;

C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on June 25, 2015 (hereinafter “instant objection”) - Contents of the adjudication: The Plaintiff’s objection is dismissed.

- An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation for a corporation and the central appraisal corporation;

D. The result of the commission of appraisal by the D appraiser office and appraiser E (hereinafter “court appraiser”) of this Court (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - The amount of appraisal: 88,038,600 won (detailed details are the same as the stated in the “court appraisal amount” of the details of compensation in the attached Form) / In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, 3-1, 3-2, 3-1, 4-2, 4-1, 4-2, 4-1, and 4-2, the result of the commission of appraisal by the court for appraiser E, the whole purport of the pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As the compensation determined by the expropriation ruling of this case on the plaintiff's alleged obstacles did not fully reflect the value of the above obstacles, it falls short of reasonable compensation, the defendant shall additionally pay the difference between the court appraisal amount and the expropriation ruling amount, which are reasonable compensation, to the plaintiff.

B. In light of the description No. 3-1 and No. 2 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3-2, the result of this court’s commission of appraisal to appraiser E and the purport of the whole argument of fact-finding.