1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,30,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 9, 2006 to April 27, 2015.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Road Project Name: Road Project (B; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): Public notice: C on March 7, 2005, the Seoul Regional Construction and Management Administration published on April 15, 2009, and D on April 15, 2009: The Seoul Regional Construction and Management Administration Administration;

B. The Plaintiff owned the paddy-gun E Ma 2,58 square meters (hereinafter “Before the instant inclusion”). Of them, 503 square meters were incorporated into the instant project area, and was divided into F. F. 503 square meters on August 30, 2004, and was admitted through the adjudication of expropriation on December 21, 2005 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee (the date of commencement of expropriation was February 8, 2006).

(hereinafter referred to as “land expropriated in this case”)

Since the expropriation, E, E, 2,055 square meters have left as remaining land, and the remaining land is indicated as 2,055 square meters in the current register on March 21, 2001, following the change of the name of the administrative district on March 21, 2001, and the change of land category on November 4, 2010.

(hereinafter “the remaining land of this case”). D.

In accordance with Articles 73(4) and 9(7) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of compensation for the decline in the value of the remaining land of this case with the Central Land Expropriation Committee. However, the Central Land Expropriation Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for adjudication to the effect that the decline in the value of the remaining land is not recognized on June 19, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the value of the remaining land of this case has fallen due to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land of this case was incorporated into the business area of this case, the Defendant must compensate for losses incurred thereby.

B. 1) The shape of the land, the expropriated land, and the remaining land prior to the incorporation of the instant case is as follows. 2) The instant adjudication procedure was conducted twice.

'each appraiser less than ''.