1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,042,80 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 19, 2016 to June 14, 2018.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business name - Business name: C (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Business site: Dwon 376,097 square meters: Defendant - A public notice of Gyeonggi-do on October 29, 2013; Gyeonggi-do public notice of April 2, 2015; G public notice of Gyeonggi-do on July 31, 2015; and H public notice of Gyeonggi-do on July 4, 2016.

(b) The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on October 4, 2016 - The date of expropriation: The date of expropriation: each land indicated in the column for “subject to expropriation” in the project zone of the instant case owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”): Compensation: The amount of KRW 25,629,000 shall be calculated as indicated in the attached Table “adjudication of Expropriation” as indicated in the attached Table 1 - An appraisal corporation and Sam Chang Chang-si appraisal corporation;

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on April 27, 2017 - Compensation: The amount of compensation shall be calculated as KRW 26,073,300, as indicated in the column for “the amount of compensation for the instant ruling” in the attached Table attached hereto - The appraisal corporation shall be an appraisal corporation, a national appraisal corporation, a uniform appraisal corporation, a unification appraisal corporation, a dialogue appraisal corporation, a Samsung appraisal corporation, and a sight appraisal corporation.

(d) Results of the appraisal by the appraiser M (hereinafter “court appraiser”) - The court appraisal results: The statement in the annexed sheet “court appraisal amount” (hereinafter “court appraisal results”): The fact that there is no dispute over the appraisal amount of KRW 27,116,100 [the grounds for recognition], each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the court appraisal results by the court appraiser before the court, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The amount of compensation determined by the adjudication on the Plaintiff’s assertion on the instant land is too low and unfair. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication on the objection and the amount of compensation for delay.

3. In a lawsuit concerning an increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, each appraisal and court appraiser, which form the basis for the ruling, are all the same.