1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,557,90 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 16, 2014 to September 7, 2016.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: A project developer (B) - Public notice on December 14, 2012: Defendant;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 22, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant ruling of expropriation”): The object of expropriation: Busan Gangseo-gu D (hereinafter “D”) in Gangseo-gu (hereinafter “D”), 4,125 square meters in size, F 328 square meters in size (hereinafter “instant land”) - The starting date of expropriation: The starting date of expropriation: the amount of compensation on July 15, 2014 - The amount of compensation: The following (the details of compensation) is the amount stated in the “adjudication of expropriation” column.

- An appraisal corporation: one appraisal corporation and the Korea Appraisal Board;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) dated February 26, 2015 - Contents of the ruling: It shall change the amount of compensation as indicated below [the details of compensation] to the amount of compensation as indicated below.

- An appraisal corporation: An ordinary appraisal corporation, an appraisal corporation and an appraisal corporation as a substitute appraiser;

D. The court’s appraisal results (hereinafter “court’s appraisal”) with respect to the commission of the G appraiser’s office appraiser H (hereinafter “court appraiser”) of this Court - The amount of appraisal is as stated below in the “court’s appraisal amount.”

[Statement of Compensation Amount] The court's appraisal of the compensation amount of E821,906,250 won 827,887,500 won 845,625,00 won F62,87,600 won 63,156,400 won 64,976,800 won 884,783,850 won 891,043,903,900 won 910,601,801,80 won

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case and the appraisal appraiser of this case selected I land as a comparative standard for F-land, it is unlawful to exclude J land and select I land as a comparative standard even though J land exists, which is a similar use-use area located at a relatively close distance, such as specific use-use area, etc. located at a lower distance. Thus, the instant expropriation ruling and its appraisal and assessment are unlawful.

In addition, the court's expert witness is "other factors."