1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,722,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 16, 2015 to August 31, 2015.

1. Details of ruling;

A. Recognition and Public Notice of Project - Project Name B: Urban Development Project (hereinafter referred to as “instant Project”): - Public Notice of Cheongju-si on June 12, 2009 - Project implementer C, etc. - Defendant:

(b) The adjudication of expropriation made on March 17, 2015 by the Chungcheongbuk-do Regional Land Tribunal on expropriation - Objects subject to expropriation: D- ground general restaurants 659,40 square meters, concrete packaging 108.8 square meters and block packaging 6 square meters, fences, trees, etc. (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): 443,010,000 won - From the date of commencement of expropriation: 443,000 won: An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation on May 15, 2015; a vice governor of the Appraisal Corporation and the Large Appraisal Board.

(c) Adjudication by the Central Land Tribunal on July 16, 2015 - Details of adjudication: The fact that there is no dispute over a dismissal [based on recognition], Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including the number of each branch; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, acceptance ruling and objection ruling that the compensation for the obstacles of this case, which were set forth in the Plaintiff’s assertion, had been excessively underassessment because they failed to properly apply the locational factors, compensation example, and other factors. Thus, the Defendant should pay the difference between the compensation reasonably fixed and the compensation determined in the appraisal by the court appraiser’s appraisal.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In a lawsuit involving an increase or decrease of one compensation, each appraisal agency’s appraisal and the court appraiser’s appraisal, which are the basis of the adjudication on expropriation, have no illegality in the appraisal methods, and there is no illegality in the appraisal methods, and the remaining factors for price assessment, excluding the individual factors and vision, are identical with each other, but where there is a difference in the appraisal results due to a somewhat different difference in the appraisal results, one of them is adopted as far as there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in the individual factors and vision of one appraisal.