1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed B, and C.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project name: A Bogeumjari Housing Project (D Bogeumjari Project (1-1) - Public notice: The defendant: E, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs published on July 14, 2010; F of the same public notice on September 17, 2010;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on August 22, 2013 - Subject to expropriation: The Plaintiff and the selected parties B, and C’s Namyang-si Co-ownership (hereinafter “instant land”): The starting date of expropriation: October 15, 2013 - Compensation: 323,496,750 won for the instant land: The land: the appraisal corporation: the exchange appraisal corporation on dialogue with the stock company, the stock company on the date of the stock company (hereinafter “appraisal”), the appraisal corporation on the date of the stock company (hereinafter “appraisal”), the fact that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition”), Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, and Eul evidence 7, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion appraiser selected the land of this case as a comparative standard where the current status of the use of the land of this case differs, road traffic conditions, etc. are different, and did not take into account the normal market price or compensation precedents for the land of this case, and did not explain specific grounds for comparison in comparison with individual factors, thereby unfairly underassessment of the compensation for the land of this case. The Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff and the designated parties the difference between the reasonable compensation for losses and the compensation for losses incurred therefrom.

B. In a lawsuit seeking increase in compensation for losses, the burden of proving that the amount of reasonable compensation exceeds the amount of compensation stipulated in the adjudication of acceptance or objection is higher than the amount of compensation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2255 delivered on November 28, 1997). In this case, there exists an error of law, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion of the appraisal and assessment based on which the Plaintiff submitted the health team and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.

It is recognized that the reasonable amount of compensation for losses with respect to the land of this case exceeds the amount of compensation for losses stipulated in the adjudication of expropriation.