1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 3,436,50 to the Plaintiff KRW 20% per annum from February 28, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: The project to open the roads around the Kimpo-si City (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”), the first (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): June 17, 2013 - the project implementer No. 2013-70, the defendant

B. Adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on May 22, 2014 - Cases subject to expropriation: Each of the obstacles in the instant case and business losses related thereto (hereinafter referred to as “each obstacles in the instant case, etc.”): The starting date of expropriation: July 15, 2014 - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation: a public appraisal corporation for know-how, a daily appraisal corporation for appraisal (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication appraiser,”) (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication”) [based on recognition] without dispute; evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2-1, 2-2, and 2-1, and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that compensation following the adjudication and appraisal on each of the obstacles in this case is based on the evaluation based on the erroneous appraisal on the grounds that the relevant expert witness omitted documents related to sales, and thus does not reach a reasonable amount of compensation. The compensation calculated according to the result of the appraisal on the appraiser B (hereinafter “court appraiser”) of the court’s appraisal on the appraiser B (hereinafter “court appraiser”) falls under a reasonable amount of compensation. Thus, the Defendant should additionally pay to the Plaintiff the difference between the compensation based on the court’s appraisal and the compensation as

B. Considering the evidence submitted by the parties to the judgment, the court’s overall purport, and the methods and contents of the court’s appraisal, both the adjudication appraiser and the court’s appraiser appear to have lawfully assessed by comprehensively taking into account all relevant factors under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Public Works Act, etc. In such a case, the relevant judgment appraiser and the court’s appraiser may not appear to have any unlawful grounds for such judgment and the