1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,452,370 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from January 13, 2016 to November 15, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Authorization and public notice of project approval - Private Investment Project (Bwork 3 tools (10j) - Public notice: C public notice issued by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on March 19, 2010, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 21, 2015;

(b) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation made on November 19, 2015 - The land subject to expropriation: 4/22 shares of E forest land E 11,920 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”): 331,376,000 won: the date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation which has agreed to a credit rating company and a general appraisal corporation which has agreed to a credit rating company.

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on February 26, 2016 (hereinafter “instant ruling”) - Compensation for losses: 334,843,630 won - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation and an appraisal corporation’s identity as an appraisal corporation and an appraisal corporation (hereinafter “adjudication appraiser”) shall be referred to as “appraisal” and the results of the appraisal

D. On November 4, 2016, with respect to the appraiser F of this Court, the result of the commission of appraisal by the appraiser F of this Court (hereinafter “court appraiser”) on November 4, 2016 - KRW 343,296,00 (which means the result of the appraisal by the court appraisal by the court”) - [Grounds for recognition], there is no dispute, each entry of evidence No. 4-1, 2, and No. 1 through 3, each entry of evidence No. 4-1, No. 4-2, and No. 503, Nov. 4, 2016; the purport of the entire

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the current status of dry field crops are cultivated and cultivated, etc. among the Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant case, the adjudication, appraisal and court appraisal were unfairly underassessment on the premise that the current status falls under “forest” as recorded in the public record, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the current status of 98 square meters in the instant land falls under “forest”; thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion of reasonable compensation for losses arising from the result of the commission of appraisal by the appraiser F on September 5, 2017.

B. According to the record of the evidence No. 7, the Plaintiff’s above 98 square meters of the instant land falls under “former,” and according to Article 48 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, with respect to the said 98 square meters of land.