1. The Defendant’s KRW 184,459,140 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 17, 2013 to June 3, 2016.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Housing site development projects (B; hereinafter referred to as "project in this case"): Defendant on December 31, 2008, publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 5, 2012, D public notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 24, 2012

B. The Central Land Expropriation Commission’s ruling on May 23, 2013 - Land to be expropriated: Fluor 2,003 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the surface obstacles thereof (hereinafter “instant obstacles”) at the time of strike - Compensation for losses: KRW 2,594,08,110 (=Land 1,535,700,100 obstacles and KRW 1,058,38,010) - The date of expropriation: July 16, 2013.

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) dated April 17, 2014 - Compensation for losses: 2,689,646,80 won (i.e., land 1,610,211,700 won 1,079,435,100 won): An appraisal corporation: a certified public appraisal corporation which has filed a dispute resolution and the central appraisal appraisal corporation of the Korea Land Tribunal (hereinafter the above appraisal corporation referred to as “each appraisal corporation”; hereinafter the same shall apply); - The fact that there is no dispute over the outcome of the appraisal; 1, 2, 3, and 1 (including any number; hereinafter the same shall apply), each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 1 (including any number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of all pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s compensation amount on the land of this case as alleged by the Plaintiff was erroneously selected as to the comparative standard or excessively underassessment because it was impossible to properly select the goods, etc., and the compensation amount on the obstacles of this case is considerably low. Therefore, the compensation amount on the land of this case and obstacles should be increased.

B. (1) Determination 1) The comparative standard of relevant legal principles on the instant land ought to take precedence over the specific use area in an urban area, barring special circumstances, and the actual land category should be given priority to the actual land category according to the actual use situation outside an urban area.

In addition, in case where the land to be expropriated is located in the urban area, there are several comparative standards for the same specific use area.