1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,410,200 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 21, 2016 to November 15, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Project approval and announcement 1): Project approval B (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”);

(2) Notice 2: The project implementer C and other 3 project implementer notified on December 26, 2013: the Defendant

B. From among the ruling of expropriation rendered on December 1, 2015 by the Special Self-Governing City and Do Land Expropriation Committee on December 1, 2015, the part concerning the instant case is subject to expropriation: 2,089 square meters prior to Dong-si, Dong-si (hereinafter “instant one land”).

(3) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following facts are examined: (a) 364 square meters prior to E in Tong-si (hereinafter “instant 2 land”); and (b) 1 and 2 land collectively “the instant land.”

(2) The date of commencement of expropriation: Compensation for losses: 296,813,000 won: The State Appraisal Corporation and the Korea Appraisal Corporation;

(c) Details of the adjudication by the Central Land Tribunal on May 26, 2016: 2) An appraisal corporation: The Korea Land Tribunal shall increase compensation for losses to KRW 315,210,500: 3) An appraisal corporation: the Pacific appraisal corporation and the central appraisal corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “appraisal”; and the amount of compensation calculated by taking an arithmetic mean of the results of the appraisal (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication”).

D. (1) Results of the appraisal in this Court: 315,210,50 won to increase the compensation for losses to 33,620,700 won: F (hereinafter “court appraiser”) : F (hereinafter “court appraiser”) / [which is the ground for recognition] / The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 12, 13, and 14 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser of this Court; the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The urban planning facility road project (H; hereinafter “instant urban planning facility road project”) determined by the G G of Young-si ( February 9, 2012) in the vicinity of the instant land as the urban planning facility project (hereinafter “instant urban planning facility project”).

(ii)The implementation plan was scheduled to be implemented, and the authorization of the implementation plan for the project was made on August 9, 2012, which is a project separate from the project in this case, and the development gains from the urban planning facility project should be reflected. (ii)