Han Cement Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Kangsan, Attorney Lee So-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korea Land Corporation (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Kang Jong-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

July 16, 2008

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,631,792,200 won with 5% interest per annum from February 3, 2007 to August 20, 2008, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Approval and public notification of projects;

- Multifunctional Administrative City Construction Project (4j)

- Notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 2005-123 of May 24, 2005

(b) Project operator: Defendant;

(c) Adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on December 15, 2006;

- Land to be expropriated: each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

- Compensation for losses: 16,369,386,400 won

- Commencement date of expropriation: February 2, 2007

(d) Ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on May 31, 2007;

- Contents of adjudication: 16,542,670,500 won to increase compensation for losses;

- An appraisal corporation: the Korea Appraisal Board and the Korea Appraisal Board (hereinafter referred to as “Adjudication Appraiser”) and the Korea Appraisal Board (hereinafter referred to as “Adjudication Appraiser”) and the result of appraisal shall be referred to

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 4-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The judgment appraisal applied the land price fluctuation rate to neighboring Si/Gun/Gu, which is not the land price fluctuation rate of the Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant land is located in the course of the time adjustment, and assessed individual factors as above the comparative standard without any specific grounds for some land, and even in the process of revising other factors taking into account the compensation preference, it was erroneous in applying the land price fluctuation rate of neighboring Si/Gun/Gu, which is not the land price fluctuation rate of the Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant land is located, and assessing regional factors and individual factors as above the land of the compensation preference without justifiable grounds, thereby undermining the amount of compensation for each land of this case. Therefore, the compensation

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The appraisal result is 5,593 square meters [specific-use area: Control area, land category, site category, road traffic, length, shape, and land size: one of the lands in this case] at 450 square meters per 450 square meters per 458 square meters per 450 square meters per 450 square meters (special-purpose area: land category, land category, road traffic, and one of the lands in this case: one of the two different appraisal values per 50 square meters per 50 square meters per 4,617 square meters per 4,617 square meters per 5 square meters per 4,000 adjacent Si/Gun (hereinafter referred to as "court appraisal") and per 50 square meters per 4,000 adjacent Si/Gun (hereinafter referred to as "specific-use area"), land category, road traffic, natural road traffic volume: 5,00 square meters per 4,000 adjacent Si/Gun's price per 14,000 adjacent Si/Gun's price per 4, respectively.

However, in the process of revising other factors, both the adjudication appraiser and the court appraiser. 5. 1. 5. 1. 5. 1 . 5 . 5 . 5 . 1 . 5 . 1 . 5 . 1 . 5 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 5 . 1 . 5 . 1 . 2 . 5 . 5 . 1 . 5 . 1 . 2 . 5 . 2 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 1 . 5 . 2 . 3 . 3 . 3 . 1 . 1 . 5 2 . 2 . 3 . 3 , 19 1 . 5 2 . 3 . . 1 3 . 3 . . 2 . . . 3 . . . . 3 3 . . . . . 3 . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(2) As a result, the adjudication appraiser calculated an average of KRW 16,542,670,50 by calculating the amount of compensation for each of the lands listed in the separate sheet. On the other hand, the court appraiser calculated the amount of compensation for each of the above lands as KRW 16,774,424,80 for the first appraisal, and KRW 18,174,462,70 for supplementary appraisal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2-2 of this Court, the result of the appraisal commission and the result of the supplemental appraisal commission by this Court, the result of each fact inquiry by this Court, the purport of whole pleadings

(c) Markets:

Article 70(1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, and Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act apply to land acquired through an adjudication. However, in cases where the land price of the Si/Gun/Gu located within the land subject to appraisal has changed due to the relevant public works, compensation shall be made at the price assessed by applying the fluctuation rate of land prices in the neighboring Si/Gun/Gu which is not related to the relevant public works. In a lawsuit for increase or decrease of land expropriation, each appraisal which forms the basis of the adjudication and the appraisal by the court has no illegality in the appraisal methods, and there is no difference between the appraisal methods and the appraisal methods in terms of the remaining appraisal methods other than the appraisal methods, but the appraisal methods are somewhat different from the appraisal methods in the process of an increase or decrease of land price of each of the land at the time of expropriation. Thus, it is reasonable to apply the fluctuation rate of land prices to one of the appraisal methods in the process of an increase or decrease of land price of each of the land at the time of expropriation.

Therefore, the reasonable amount of compensation for each of the lands of this case shall be KRW 18,174,462,70. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,631,792,200 corresponding to the difference between the above legitimate amount of compensation and KRW 16,542,670,500, which is the amount of compensation set forth in the objection ruling, and damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum from February 3, 2007, which is the date following the date of the commencement of expropriation until August 20, 208, which is the date of the imposition of the sentence, until August 20, 208, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment of List]

Judges Ha Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) Dominon Dominon