1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,259,100 as well as annual 5% from June 13, 2019 to May 14, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) The name of the project: B (i) the public announcement of the approval of the project and the name of the project: A public announcement of the project on November 9, 2017; (ii) the D3 project operator of the public announcement of the latitude-do on June 21, 2018: the defendant;

B. The subject matter of expropriation by the local land expropriation committee located on April 24, 2019: 6 parcels of land owned by the Plaintiff, including Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, 539 square meters, F trees 632 square meters, G trees 3,034 square meters, H trees 398 square meters, I trees 536 square meters, J trees 1,49 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant land”).

3) Of the above land, there are obstacles to the above land, such as G 3,034 square meters above ground houses in Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “instant obstacles”).

2) Compensation for losses: 1,440,300,300 won (=land 901,772,300 won) 538,528,000 won (=land 901,772,300)

C. Compensation for losses as a result of an appraisal commission to K of an appraiser in this Court (hereinafter “court appraisal”): KRW 1,480,559,400 (i.e., land 931,311,400 obstacles of KRW 549,248,00) 【Grounds for recognition】 without any dispute; (ii) Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 6; (iii) the result of the appraisal commission to K of an appraiser in this Court; and (iv) the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) The appraisal result, which forms the basis of the decision to expropriate the Plaintiff, is too low in the value of the instant land and obstacles, so the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the reasonable amount of compensation and the amount of compensation for the adjudication to expropriate the instant land. 2) The Defendant’s court appraisal, in comparison with the individual factors, assessed the conditions of access to the instant land as agreed acquisition (1.00, 1.02) or the appraisal of expropriation (1.12, 1.15) without any special grounds.

This is an excessive value that is inconsistent with the adjacent and balance, so it is necessary to revise the comparison value of the access condition to 1.12.

B. The results of the appraisal submitted by the appraiser on the commission of the court 1 court through the expert knowledge and experience are considerably significant in the process.

or the other party.