1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,245,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 9, 2017 to September 13, 2018.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business name - Business name: Hanam City Urban Planning Facility Project (B) (hereinafter “instant project”) - Project execution site: C-Hanam City, Hanam City, Do - Project implementer - The Hanam City - The Hanam City - the decision on the change of the roads of urban planning facilities (E) and the announcement of the approval of the implementation plan: F publicly notified on June 2, 2016;

B. The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation as of April 24, 2017 and the ruling of correction as of May 15, 2017 - The date of expropriation: June 8, 2017 - Land to be expropriated as of June 8, 2017: Each of the land indicated in the column for “land subject to expropriation” in the attached Form “land subject to expropriation” within the instant project zone owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”): Compensation: Determination as at KRW 935,939,000 as indicated in the attached Table “Adjudication of Expropriation” column - An appraisal corporation: The current appraisal corporation; one appraisal corporation;

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of objection made on February 22, 2018 and the ruling of correction made on March 22, 2018 - Compensation: The amount of compensation calculated as KRW 935,965,000, as indicated in the column for “an amount of compensation by objection” in the attached Table attached hereto - The appraisal corporation shall be the third appraisal corporation and the third appraisal corporation.

(d) Results of the appraisal by the appraiser G (hereinafter “court appraiser”) - The court appraisal results: Attached Table “The court appraisal amount shall be assessed as KRW 963,210,000 as indicated in the column for column for column for column for column for column for section 963,210,00 [a ground for recognition], without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, and the court appraisal results, the whole purport of the 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 that forms the basis for the ruling and the court appraiser’s appraisal.