1. The Defendant’s KRW 59,973,400 as well as annual 5% from July 17, 2013 to December 4, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Housing site development project name (hereinafter referred to as "project of this case"): The defendant, publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 31, 2008, C, D, April 5, 2012, E, announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 24, 2012 - project operator E:

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 23, 2013 (hereinafter “adjudication of expropriation”) - Land and obstacles described in the “amount of compensation” in the “amount of compensation” in attached Form 1 (hereinafter collectively “each land of this case and the obstacles of this case”): Compensation for losses: The amount indicated in the “amount of compensation” column in attached Form 1 “amount of compensation” - The starting date of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on July 16, 2013 - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation at sight and a national appraisal corporation;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection (hereinafter “Objection”) dated March 20, 2014 - Contents of the adjudication: Increase the amount of compensation for losses to the amount indicated in the “assessment by the No.I.D.” column of Attached 1 “The appraised by the No.I.D.”): An appraisal corporation: A certified public appraisal corporation; a central appraisal corporation; a corporation; no dispute exists; Gap’s evidence No. 1; and the purport of the entire pleadings; and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since compensation for the subject matter of expropriation as stipulated in the Plaintiff’s assertion of objection does not reach just cause, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the difference between the amount of compensation determined by the court’s appraisal and the adjudication of expropriation and compensation for delay.

B. Attached Form 2 of the relevant statutes is as indicated in the relevant statutes.

C. Fact 1) As a result of the commission of the court’s appraisal on each of the instant lands, the result of the commission of the appraiser F to the appraiser F by this court (hereinafter “ appraiser F”) is “court’s land appraiser,” and the result of the appraisal is “court’s land appraisal.”

According to the above, the court's land appraiser is identical to the expropriation ruling and objection ruling ruling on the comparison standard of each land of this case.