1. The Defendant’s KRW 53,218,50 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 3, 2018 to December 11, 2018, and the following.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public announcement - Business name : B business name - Public announcement: C publicly announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 30, 2009 - Business operator: Defendant;

B. Adjudication on expropriation - Adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on November 9, 2017 - Persons subject to expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee: D major D 22,070 square meters and the obstacles on their ground owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “goods subject to expropriation of this case”) - The date of commencement of expropriation: January 2, 2018.

Ruling on an objection - Judgment by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on May 24, 2018

(d) court appraisal - Results of the commission of appraisal by appraiser E of this Court on November 21, 2018

(e) As a result of the appraisal of compensation for losses (units: 890,100,000 837,315,000 52,785,000 b50,175,400 249,741,900 43,500 1,140,275,270 1,087,087,056,050 53,218,500 1,500 1,000 1,056,90 53,218,500 1 through 5, and 1 through 4 (including a number), the result of the appraisal by the court, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. In cases where the appraisal by an appraisal institution which forms the basis for adjudication on the increase or decrease of the scope of just compensation following the adjudication on expropriation and the appraisal by an appraiser selected by a court differently from the appraisal by the comparison, etc. of individual factors, in principle, whether to choose any one of the appraisal shall belong to the court's discretion;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2963 Decided November 12, 2015, etc.). An appraiser, appraiser in the instant ruling of acceptance, appraiser in the instant ruling, and appraiser in the instant court appears to have lawfully assessed the instant land in accordance with relevant statutes, instead of all, pursuant to relevant statutes. The instant court ought to calculate the reasonable amount of compensation based on the court’s appraisal that shows that the characteristics of the instant land and all factors related to the price formation are more appropriate.

Therefore, the defendant is related to the goods to be expropriated in this case.