1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,031,100 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 17, 2013 to August 13, 2014.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Housing site development project (B Development District 1; hereinafter “instant project”): Defendant: C public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on June 28, 2007; D public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 31, 2008; E public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 5, 2012; F public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 24, 2012;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 23, 2013 (hereinafter “adjudication of expropriation”): G field 2,607 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”): G field 2,607 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”): Compensation for losses: 583,185,90 won: the date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on July 16, 2013 - An appraisal corporation: Aion appraisal corporation and a central appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal”) on the basis of the arithmetic mean the results of the appraisal (hereinafter “adjudication”).

C. The court appraiser H’s appraisal results on December 23, 2013 - Compensation for losses assessed as farmland: 602,217,000 won;

D. As a result of the court appraiser H’s appraisal conducted on December 31, 2013 - Compensation for losses assessed as a site for factory: KRW 930,69,00 (based on recognition): the fact that there is no dispute over the instant land; Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 1 through 3 (including additional numbers); the result of the court’s appraisal entrusted to appraiser H and the result of the court’s appraisal entrusted to the appraiser H; the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s building on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”).

Although this was constructed, the land of this case was assessed as farmland according to the land category in the public record.

However, in light of the fact that the building permit of this case was issued and the development activities and farmland conversion of the land of this case was permitted as a matter of collective processing, since the building of this case is a steel structure, it is not a temporary building or a temporary building, the defendant assessed the second floor of this case as a factory and compensated for it, and the business compensation was not an agricultural compensation.