1. The Defendant’s KRW 526,318,80 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 22, 2015 to January 17, 2017.

1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Public Housing Project (B) - (hereinafter “instant project”) - Defendant: D publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on October 14, 2014, publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 26, 2010

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on February 26, 2015 - Land subject to expropriation: The number of each land listed in the [Land] column in the separate sheet of compensation for losses [Attachment I] (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above land” is specified only with its parcel number, and total sum of compensation for losses: Total sum of KRW 5,996,82,100 (specific details are the corresponding parts in the separate sheet of compensation for losses (the amount of compensation for expropriation) - The starting date of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on April 21, 2015 - An appraisal corporation: a flood appraisal corporation and a dialogue appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal for expropriation”) (the results of the appraisal shall be referred to as “appraisal for expropriation”).

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on September 17, 2015 - Details of the adjudication: The amount of compensation for each of the instant lands shall be increased to KRW 6,392,35,000 in total as stated in the separate sheet (the amount of compensation for the objection) in the separate sheet for compensation for losses - The amount of compensation for each of the instant lands shall be increased to KRW 6,392,35,000 in total as stated in the separate sheet for compensation for losses - The appraisal corporation: the central appraisal corporation and the future appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal for the objection,” and the “appraisal for the objection”) [based on the recognition]] without any dispute, the fact that there is no dispute as to the outcome of the appraisal

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① Since each of the instant lands is the land provided to the buildings, appurtenant buildings, and annexed parking lots for the public bath business operated by the Plaintiff, the land E and F should be assessed as a complex by adding up the remaining lands among the instant lands.

② Each of the instant lands was subject to an unfair reduction assessment on the land terms solely on the ground that the area was wide. However, this is unreasonable, and thus, it should be assessed at a price without an unreasonable reduction.

B. Determination on the assertion of evaluation of the complex is based on the relevant legal principles.