1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 18,774,00 and KRW 3,148,00 among the Plaintiff, from February 6, 2018 to October 16, 2019.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Name of the project and that of the public announcement of the project approval: The public announcement of the project approval of the C project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): The E project operator publicly announced on June 9, 2016 on the racing, the D, and April 6, 2017: the defendant;

B. The land to be expropriated and the land to be expropriated (hereinafter “instant land”) (1) 33 square meters in F-si in racing-si (hereinafter “1 land”) (2) Ga-si 50 square meters in G (hereinafter “2 land”) in racing-si (hereinafter “the remaining land in this case”) - The H-si Gyeong-si 49 square meters in racing-si.

C. Compensation for losses for the land No. 1 on December 15, 2017: 21,549,000 won for the land No. 2: 39,514,000 won; on the other hand, the claim for compensation for losses for the remaining land was dismissed on the ground that the value did not decline.

Date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on February 5, 2018: I & J.

(d) The Central Land Tribunal’s compensation for losses on the second land of KRW 21,763,500 for the land of KRW 21,763,500 on August 23, 2018: K and L companies

E. According to the result of the court’s commission of appraisal to the Mevaluation Office (hereinafter “the result of the court’s appraisal”), as of December 15, 2017, compensation for the first land was assessed as KRW 23,034,00, compensation for the second land as of December 15, 2017, and compensation for the loss as of KRW 42,180,000, and compensation for the loss as to the decrease in price of the remaining land of this case as of KRW 15,626,00.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the court's appraisal result, the whole purport of pleading

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, the compensation for losses recognized in the adjudication procedure was too low in light of the surrounding transaction cases, etc., the Defendant assessed against the Plaintiff.