1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 9,897,400 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from May 3, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) recognition and public notice of a project - General industrial complex project (B) - Public notice of a general industrial complex project: The defendant: public notice C of October 14, 2013; Gangwon-do public notice D of December 17, 2014; Gangwon-do public notice E of April 15, 2016;

B. The Gangwon-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on July 29, 2016 - Land subject to expropriation: Fluor 697 square meters in the East Sea (see attached Table 1; hereinafter “instant land”) and two parcels of land (see attached Table 2) and objects on the ground (see attached Table 2): The starting date of expropriation: August 29, 2016 - Total amounting to KRW 488,840,300 (land: 232,490,300, goods: 256,350,000, and the amount of compensation for each subject is 1 and 2)

(c) Ruling of the Central Land Tribunal on March 23, 2017 - Claim for the increased amount of compensation for losses: The fact that there is no dispute over dismissal [based on recognition], entry in the evidence of subparagraphs A2 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s ruling of acceptance of the instant land does not take into account the location, use, future utility value, accessibility to national highways, and operating profit from the lease, etc. of the instant land, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the difference between the Plaintiff and the reasonable amount of compensation.

B. In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, in case where both the appraisal and the court appraiser’s appraisal which form the basis of the adjudication on expropriation do not have any illegality in the method of appraisal, and there is no other reason for the remaining price assessment factors except for the comparison of goods, and in case where there is a difference in the result of appraisal due to a somewhat different relationship between the appraisal and the comparison of goods, insofar as there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in the content of the appraisal, any more trust in each of the appraisal belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding court.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du25237, Oct. 9, 2008). In light of such legal principles, the market price appraisal results of appraiser G are below the outcome of the examination.