1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 41,93,600 and KRW 30,000 among them, from May 9, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project approval and public notice of an urban planning facility project (B) - Public notice of the project: Ulsan-gun, May 11, 2017 - Project operator: Ulsan-gun;

B. The subject matter of expropriation on October 16, 2017 by the local land expropriation committee of Ulsan Metropolitan City: Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the Plaintiff owned (hereinafter “Duri-gun”), 330 square meters E, F field 367 square meters, G forest land 9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and the starting date of expropriation of obstacles on the ground: Compensation for losses on December 11, 2017: 271,727,80 won: 102,446,70 won on the instant land; 102,478,260 won on the ground obstacles; 271,727,80 won on the instant land; 102,46,70 won on the residential land; 14,578,260 won on the residential relocation expenses and on the ground obstacles (in this case, the Plaintiff claimed the increase of compensation for the instant land and on the ground obstacles; and 2).

(c) Objects subject to the expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on March 22, 2018: Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers), and the purport of all pleadings, as a whole, that there is no dispute over the instant land owned by the plaintiff and the compensation for losses on the ground obstacles thereto: 276,910,400 won of the instant land, and 103,821,800 won of the relevant ground obstacles (applicable to recognition).

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. In the instant case, the Plaintiff asserts that the land of this case and its ground obstacles should be assessed on the premise that the land of this case should be “site” rather than “the land category registered in the actual state of use,” and that the pertinent land and its ground obstacles should be assessed on the premise that the land of this case and its ground obstacles are “site” and the court appraiser calculated the land category of 330 square meters under the premise that they are “site”, and sought payment of the difference between the compensation for losses and the compensation for losses under the court appraisal.

On this issue, the defendant asserts that there is no illegality in appraisal by the appraisal agency of the objection.

B. First of all, determination 1 appraisal results, the reasonable amount of compensation of 330 square meters owned by the Plaintiff is calculated.