1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,900,000 and annual interest thereon from November 26, 2018 to May 9, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: B housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (j) - Business operator: Defendant - Business approval: Defendant - Public announcement of project approval: Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 20, 2013 - Rearrangement Zone C- Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D one thousand five hundred and fifty one kilometer (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”);

(b) Decision of expropriation made on February 23, 2018 by the local Land Tribunal of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan City: F of a partitioned building in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “instant partitioned building”): Compensation for losses: 279,500,000 won on April 13, 2018 - The case of comparative transaction between the appraisal corporation and K: G in charge of the transaction of the instant partitioned building: The case of comparative transaction between the above two appraisal corporations: Seoul Seongbuk-gu I Jho-ho (82.1m2, a lot ownership: 85.27m2, a lot ownership: 75,000m2, a lot ownership: 265.27m27m2,00, a transaction price per a deposit area: 3,227,378m2, a lot of land: the date of approval for use: the date of approval for use: December 7, 1982).

(c) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on October 25, 2018 - Compensation for losses: 283,50,000 won: K and L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of L of the above two appraisal corporations: The purport of the above two appraisal corporations is to write down in the comparative transaction cases of the partitioned building of this case as follows:

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The amount of compensation for an objection against the instant partitioned building owned by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a reasonable amount of compensation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for additional compensation equivalent to the amount stated in the purport of the claim should be made.

B. In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation 1, each appraisal and the court appraiser, which form the basis for the ruling, do not have any illegality in the assessment methods, and there is no ground for illegality in the assessment methods.