1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 62,460 as well as 5% per annum from December 17, 2014 to June 2, 2016 and from the next day.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name A (hereinafter referred to as "instant project"): Public notice: B announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on March 19, 2010, C, the same notice C, April 13, 2010, D, October 7, 2013, E, and the same notice F, April 11, 2014: the Seoul Regional Construction and Management Administration:

B. The Plaintiff owned 1,216,194/23,405,100 shares of 234,051 square meters (hereinafter “instant co-ownership ratio”) out of the YY-gu, Seongdong-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “the instant land before the instant partition”). Upon the implementation of the instant project, the land before the instant partition was divided into 221,530 square meters of Gan-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and Y 21,530 square meters of land, H forest, 502 square meters of 12,019 square meters of land (hereinafter the instant land are specified only once) and the land was expropriated by the Defendant, and H land (hereinafter “the instant remaining land”).

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation by October 23, 2014 - Land subject to expropriation: I land (hereinafter “instant land”): - Compensation for losses on December 16, 2014: 46,403,360 won (i.e., 12,019 square meters x 12,216,194/23,405,100 x 74,300 x 74,300 m2/m2, and 74,300 m2) - An appraisal corporation: Sail appraisal corporation, Alban appraisal corporation, Inc. (hereinafter “adjudication appraiser”), and the result and result of the appraisal are “adjudication” and “the result of the appraisal of the adjudication”).

D. On the other hand, 100 co-owners of the land prior to the partition of co-owned property, including the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against three other co-owners, such as Suwon District Court 2009Gahap10146 as to the said land, and the said court on September 8, 2010, filed a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property as to the said land, and the said court held the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s ownership of 12,612 square meters of K forest and land indicated in the annexed drawing No. 1 (hereinafter “K land”).