1. The Defendant’s KRW 864,300 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 20, 2014 to April 2, 2015.

1. Details of ruling;

A. Business Name - Business Name : B development project (hereinafter “instant project”): Defendant - Public Notice: C Public Notice on June 29, 201

B. The ruling of expropriation made on February 17, 2014 by the Chungcheongnam-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “adjudication of expropriation”): The starting date of expropriation: March 19, 2014 - The list of “the indication of real estate subject to expropriation” owned by the Plaintiff as follows:

(hereinafter “the instant real property”). - Compensation for losses: The entry of “the amount of adjudication of expropriation” as listed below.

- Certified Public Appraisal Corporation: Sam Chang-si Appraisal Corporation and Cho Jong-il Appraisal Corporation;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection on August 21, 2014 (hereinafter “adjudication”) - Contents of the ruling: The following is indicated as the amount of the ruling:

- Certified Public Appraisal Corporation: Chungcheong branch offices of the Japanese Certified Public Appraisal Corporation, and Chungcheong branch offices of the Erad Public Appraisal Corporation

D. Results of a request for appraisal to D by the party-level appraiser (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - Contents of appraisal: The appraisal is indicated as “court appraisal amount” as follows:

EF 【Ground of recognition】 An absence of any dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the appraisal at the time of the previous adjudication on the plaintiff's assertion does not state specific reasons in the comparison of individual factors, the appraisal by the court appraiser presented specific grounds for the present situation of the land in this case, the reasons for the selection of comparative standard, the reasons for the exhaustion of individual factors, and the reasons for the calculation of the rate of correction of other factors. In particular, in the case of individual factors, the comparison standard and the relation between the land in this case are relatively detailed in terms of comparison and the relation between the land in this case. Thus, the defendant is able to more trust the result of the court appraisal. Thus, the defendant is 864.4.