1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 247,042,100 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 15, 2015 to August 9, 2018; and (b).

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: Road Project (B Corporation; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): Public notice given by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on November 4, 2014 - Business operator C: Defendant

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation by May 21, 2015 - Land to be expropriated: Attached Table / [Attachment Table] owned by the Plaintiff: Each land indicated in the column for “subject matter to expropriation” (hereinafter “D” and “E” shall be specified only with the parcel number; each land shall be specified only with the parcel number; each land shall be combined with each of the above land; the “each of the instant land” shall be referred to as “each of the instant land subject to expropriation”): The amount indicated in [Attachment Table] - The date of commencement of expropriation: An amount indicated in the column for “amount of adjudication on expropriation” - The Appraisal Corporation: F and the Korea Appraisal Board.

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on March 24, 2016 – Compensation for losses: The amount stated in the [Attachment Table] column - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation: (a) an appraisal corporation G and H (hereinafter “appraisal”) together with an appraisal corporation; and (b) the result of the appraisal in question is without dispute with the result of the appraisal of expropriation; (c) the facts that there is no dispute; (d) Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4; and (e) Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (e) the purport of all pleadings and arguments as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion and appraisal, and this Court’s appraisal of the Plaintiff’s assertion and appraisal by the appraiser J of I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “court appraiser”).

(1) The result of the appraisal conducted by the commission (hereinafter referred to as “court appraisal”)

As above, the Defendant calculated excessively lower compensation for each of the instant lands due to the error below, and thus, the difference between the reasonable compensation amount and the reasonable compensation amount is determined as KRW 1 billion on the ground that when the Plaintiff evaluates the current status of each of the instant lands located in E, not “forest,” unlike the appraisal of adjudication, the amount of compensation should be increased by 30%.

payment. The payment shall be made.