1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 22,200,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from September 22, 2017 to April 25, 2018; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Authorization and announcement of project implementation - Project name: B housing redevelopment rearrangement project - Project implementer: Defendant - Public announcement of project implementation authorization: Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public announcement on August 16, 2013;

(b) Decision on expropriation made on September 30, 2016 by the local Land Tribunal of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City: 5.5,500,000 won for expropriation adjudication made on September 18, 2016

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on the objection made on September 21, 2017 - Compensation for losses: 420,500,000 won - An appraisal corporation: A new appraisal corporation and an appraisal corporation in charge of the settlement of disputes;

D. The court appraiser F’s appraisal result (hereinafter “court appraiser”) of the court appraiser F (hereinafter “court appraiser”) selected a sectioned building No. 201 (former size: 48.12 square meters, time point of transaction: February 16, 2012) on the ground of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a transaction comparison case, and calculated the appraisal value of the instant expropriated subject matter through the process of comparing the transaction comparison factors, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the court's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff sought 22,200,000 won and damages for delay corresponding to the difference between the appraised value based on the court’s appraisal result and the compensation for losses on the subject matter of expropriation in the instant case with due compensation for losses.

B. In a lawsuit as to an increase or decrease of 1 compensation, in cases where each of the appraisal and the court appraiser, which forms the basis of the adjudication, have no illegality in the assessment methods, and there is no difference in the assessment results due to a somewhat different relation from the assessment methods in terms of goods, etc., either of them.