1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,583,400 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 17, 2013 to August 12, 2014.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: Housing site development (B Area 1) - Public notice: Defendant on December 31, 2008: C public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs C, D on April 5, 2012, E on December 24, 2012;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 23, 2013 (hereinafter “adjudication of expropriation”): Fluor 498 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”): Compensation for losses: 415,282,200 square meters (hereinafter “the date of commencement of expropriation”): July 16, 2013; - An appraisal business entity: a corporation: a flood appraisal corporation; a national appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal for expropriation”) (hereinafter “appraisal for expropriation”) [based on recognition]; (i) there is no dispute; (ii) evidence Nos. 1 through 3; (iii) evidence Nos. 1 through 1 and 2 (including each number); and (iii) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (iv) the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The appraisal result, which forms the basis of the judgment to expropriate the Plaintiff’s assertion, is excessively low and unfair.

Therefore, the compensation for the instant land should be increased to the difference between the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser G (hereinafter “court appraiser”) and the compensation determined by the court’s ruling of expropriation.

B. In a lawsuit claiming an increase in compensation for losses under Article 85(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, the burden of proving that the amount of reasonable compensation exceeds the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication on expropriation is the Plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2255 delivered on Nov. 28, 1997, etc.). Meanwhile, in a lawsuit involving an increase or decrease of compensation, the appraisal by each appraisal institution and the appraisal by a court appraiser, which form the basis for the adjudication on expropriation, are not illegal in the appraisal method, and there is no other reason for the assessment method, and in the consideration of the remaining factors for the price assessment except for the individual factors, the appraisal by a court appraiser is somewhat different in the appraisal.