1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 7,004,800 won and each year from August 13, 2014 to April 12, 2016.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business name: Public notice of project name: B development industry (2) on November 24, 2009; C public notice of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy on December 18, 2012; D public notice of Gyeongnam-do on December 18, 2012; and E3 business operator announced by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on October 23, 2013: Defendants

B. Subject to expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on June 19, 2014: Land listed in [Attachment 1] through 8 attached table of compensation details owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

2) Compensation for losses: as stated in the column for “amount of adjudication on expropriation” in the separate sheet on the details of compensation.

3) Commencement date of expropriation: subject to expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on August 12, 2014 (Adjudication 1 of November 20, 2014) on November 20, 2014:

B. 1) Compensation for losses as stated in subparagraph 2: As stated in the separate sheet on the compensation details column for “adjudgment amount” is as stated in the separate sheet on the compensation details.

3) An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation for a stock company and a uniform appraisal corporation for a stock company (hereinafter referred to as “an appraisal corporation with a judgment”).

A person shall be appointed.

D. As a result of the instant court’s appraisal, the result of the commission of appraisal to the appraisal corporation which is the date when the appraisal was entrusted to the appraisal corporation which is the date when the appraisal was made by the court (hereinafter “court appraiser,” and the result of the commission of appraisal is referred to as “court appraisal”) is as stated in the column of “court appraisal amount” in the annexed compensation list.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including various numbers), the result of the appraisal commission to the three appraisal corporations of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and appraisal and each appraisal and appraisal based on the appraisal and appraisal are not illegal in the assessment methods, and there is no other's opinion in consideration of the remaining price factors except for the comparison of goods and services, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is an error in the comparison of goods and services of any one appraisal and assessment, as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is an error in the appraisal in the comparison of goods and services.