1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,107,132,70 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 17, 2013 to October 19, 2016.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public announcement - Housing site development project (B Area 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - Public announcement: Defendant: C public announcement of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on June 28, 2007, D public notification of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 31, 2008, E public notification of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 5, 2014, F public notification of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 24, 2012:

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on May 23, 2013 - Land subject to expropriation: Each land indicated in the column for “subject to expropriation” in attached Table 1 attached to the Plaintiff’s ownership (hereinafter “each land of this case”) - Compensation amount: The same shall apply to the relevant amount indicated in the attached Table 1’s “Adjudication on Expropriation”).

- Commencement date of expropriation: - An appraisal corporation which has been engaged in the appraisal business on July 16, 2013 - The central appraisal corporation;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on April 17, 2014 - The amount of compensation for losses: The same shall be as the amount indicated in the column for “the amount of objection” in the attached Table 1.

- An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation and a national appraisal corporation;

D. The market price appraisal and the request for complementary appraisal for the appraiser G of this Court – The amount of compensation for losses: The amount is as indicated in the column of “court appraisal” in attached Table 1.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 1-4, Eul evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the market price appraisal and supplementary appraisal of appraiser G of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the event each of the instant lands is not incorporated into the instant project, it is clear that the specific use area would be changed to “a planned management area,” and thus, the amount of compensation for losses should be assessed on the premise of such alteration. 2) The Plaintiff completed the alteration of form and quality of each of the instant lands on or around November 2006 with permission to engage in development activities as to part of each of the instant lands. Each of the instant lands must be assessed

3. The defendant is based on the premise that each of the instant lands has been changed to a planned control area.