1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,092,350 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 16, 2015 to September 8, 2016.

Project approval and public announcement of the process of adjudication - Project approval and public announcement of urban planning facilities (B): The Gangdong-gu public announcement of April 17, 2014 - Project operator: The adjudication of expropriation on March 27, 2015 by the defendant Regional Land Expropriation Committee of Gangdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City - The adjudication of expropriation - The expropriation date of 1,719 square meters of land E (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D (hereinafter referred to as “D”): May 15, 2015 - The compensation for losses: The adjudication of compensation for losses - The adjudication of the Central Land Expropriation Committee of October 22, 2015 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee of KRW 1,874, 311,650 - the appraisal corporation: the appraisal corporation at issue, the appraisal corporation at issue / [Grounds] the appraisal corporation at issue, the appraisal corporation at issue, and the appraisal corporation at issue of land registration number and the appraisal corporation at issue of each of the instant land are asserted.

This is because: (a) the Central Land Tribunal’s appraisal appraiser of the objection (hereinafter “appraisal”) and the appraiser F (hereinafter “court appraisal appraiser”) affiliated with the public appraisal appraisal company affiliated with the public appraisal company of the public appraisal company of the public appraisal company of the public appraisal company of the public appraisal company of this case (hereinafter “court appraisal”) have selected G answer 1,361 square meters as a comparative standard not to recognize similarity between the land in this case and the actual use of the land in question and the surrounding environment; and (b) in comparison with individual factors, the actual transaction price and market price of the land in this case were not properly reflected in the comparison of the land in this case, such as erroneous assessment of the street system and continuity, the land category in the public register, administrative regulation, etc.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of compensation that has not been properly assessed as to the instant land.

Judgment

Where the land to be expropriated is located in an urban area, the relevant specific-use area shall affect the price formation of land.