1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - The Busan New Port Port, the Urban Railroad and the Gyeongjin Electric Cable (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Project”) - the Project for the Promotion of the Publicity and Fire Fighting (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Project”) No. 2005-91 of April 16, 2005

(b) Project operator: Defendant;

C. The Plaintiff owned B 533 E 11 B 256 F 16 C 1,648 G 30 G 381 C 387 D 1,517 493 J 623 J 493, 698 2,793, the sum of the 3,698 2,793 533 m2, 5333 m2, C 1,648 m2, and D 1,517 m2,517 m2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “before expropriation”).

Land before expropriation was divided as indicated in the column and column of “land to be expropriated” on the table below due to the project in this case.

(hereinafter referred to as "land by the relevant lot number").

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on December 15, 2006 - Land subject to expropriation: Each land indicated in the column for “land to be expropriated” in the above table (hereinafter collectively referred to as “land to be expropriated”) - Compensation date: February 2, 2007 - Compensation for losses: KRW 201,952,250 - The Plaintiff’s application for purchase of each land indicated in the Plaintiff’s above table “cruel land” ( collectively referred to as “the remaining land of this case”) shall be dismissed on the ground that it cannot be deemed significantly difficult to use the remaining land for its original purpose, considering the location, area, and use situation of the remaining land of this case.

E. The Central Land Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for compensation for losses on July 20, 2012, as the value of the remaining land of this case has decreased due to the project of this case, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s application for compensation for losses is recognized as having no depreciation of the remaining land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-1 to 9, 3, and 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The value of the remaining land of this case has declined due to the implementation of the Plaintiff’s assertion.