1. The Defendant: 29,215,850 won to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 14, 2015 to July 14, 2016.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: B (B) 4th (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public notice given by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on March 19, 2010, C, D, April 13, 2010, E, the same public notice E, March 4, 2013, and the same notice F, April 11, 2014,

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation by November 20, 2014 - Land subject to expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal: Each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each land of this case” and each land shall be specified as “net No.” listed in the separate sheet) - The date of expropriation: January 13, 2015 - The “date of appraisal of expropriation” listed in the separate sheet as the same as each indicated in the separate sheet - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation at ordinary day, a corporation for public appraisal, a corporation for public appraisal (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal of expropriation”).

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on August 20, 2015 - Compensation for losses: As indicated in the separate sheet “the result of the appraisal of the said ruling” - An appraisal corporation: An Onnuri Appraisal Corporation; and an appraisal corporation in sight (hereinafter “appraisal of the said ruling”)

D. On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff reserved and received compensation (1,349,392,250 won) for each of the instant lands from the Seoul Regional Land Management Office, which was affiliated with the Defendant, due to the expropriation ruling on each of the instant lands. On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff reserved and additionally received compensation for losses (82,40 won) increased by the Seoul Regional Land Management Office (82,400 won) according to the instant ruling.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and Eul evidence 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s appraisal of acceptance of the claim is unfair by excessively lowering the compensation for losses for each land of this case. As such, the Defendant should additionally pay the difference between the reasonable compensation and the Plaintiff.

In particular,