Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Jinjin, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Doll, Attorneys Gyeong-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 15, 2011

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2 4,590,750 won with 5% interest per annum from March 10, 201 to March 29, 201, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. All of the claims of the plaintiff 1 and 3 (the defendant 2 in the appellate trial and the decision of the Supreme Court) are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiff 1 and 3 shall be borne by the above plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The main text of Paragraph (1) and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 5% interest per annum from March 10, 2010 to the pronouncement date of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and shall pay to the plaintiff 3 158,70,650 interest per annum from March 31, 2010 to the pronouncement date of this case, and 5% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Approval and public notification of projects;

1) Notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 2007-390, Sept. 21, 2007

2) Business contents

A) Plaintiffs 1 and 2

- The Yangjucheon District / the 8th Housing Site Development Project.

B) Plaintiff 3

- The Yangjucheon District: The First Housing Site Development Project.

3) Project operator: Defendant.

(iv) an object of confinement;

A) Plaintiff 1

(1) 73 square meters in Gyeyang-dong (number 1 omitted), 773 square meters in Yangju-si (number 1 omitted), 2. the same (number 2 omitted), 76 square meters in the same (number 2 omitted), 3. 9 square meters in the same (number 3 omitted), 112 square meters in the same (number 4 omitted), 5 square meters in the same (number 5 omitted), 375 square meters in the same (number 5 omitted), 6. 88 square meters in the same (number 6 omitted).

B) Plaintiff 2

The third Deputy Business of Plaintiff 2 on the land owned by the said Plaintiff 1 and its obstacles.

C) Plaintiff 3

The share of 1/2 owned by Plaintiff 3 among the 1706 square meters in Seo-dong ( Address 1 omitted) Yangju-si (No. 1 omitted).

(iii) the contents of the expropriation ruling or objection ruling;

A) Plaintiffs 1 and 2

(1) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on January 14, 2010 and its ruling on June 11, 2010

(2) Date of commencement of expropriation: March 9, 2010

(3) Acceptance compensation in an objection ruling

- Plaintiff 1: 1,544,757,050 won

- Plaintiff 2: 85,461,250 won

B) Plaintiff 3

(1) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on February 4, 2010 and the ruling of acceptance on June 11, 2010

(2) Date of commencement of expropriation: March 30, 2010

(c) Expropriation compensation: 301,578,150 won;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2-1, 2, 3-1, 2-3-2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Plaintiff 1

As Plaintiff 1’s ①, ② On the ground, Plaintiff 2 constructed a building related to the business and operated the Deputy Director, each of the above lands must be assessed as a group of land sites, and the compensation for the remaining lands shall also be increased.

2) Plaintiff 2

In calculating the compensation for plaintiffs 2, there is an omission in the calculation of the compensation for the third Deputy Director, who is operated by the plaintiff 2, and the evaluation thereof shall be conducted. In addition, the increase in compensation for the business and obstacles shall be sought.

3) Plaintiff 3

The land owned by Plaintiff 3 is assessed as land for factory when calculating compensation, since the land category was changed to the land for factory.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to Plaintiff 1’s claim

In a lawsuit claiming the amount of compensation increase, the burden of proving that the amount of reasonable compensation exceeds the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication on expropriation is the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2255 delivered on November 28, 197, etc.).

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 10, 15 of the evidence No. 1, it is acknowledged that Plaintiff 2 constructed two buildings with a total area of 39 square meters on the land owned by Plaintiff 1 and used the 39 square meters in the office, etc., which are the building of the light board building of the light board No. 2, which is an automobile-related facility, on the land owned by Plaintiff 1, and used it as the office. However, as seen above, Plaintiff 2 had operated the business by building two buildings with a total area of 39 square meters in total of 773 square meters in the land area of the same (number No. 2 omitted) and the same (number 1 omitted) 76 square meters in Yang-si-dong (number 2 omitted) and the same (number 1 omitted) and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff 2 used it as the land different from that of the same building site.

Therefore, the appraiser non-party 2's appraisal result on the portion of 773 square meters in Yangju-si (number 1 omitted) Seo-dong, Yangju-si, as it was based on the premise that the said land was used as a site on the same (number 2 omitted) to 76 square meters and a group of sites, it is not adopted. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount of reasonable compensation for the remaining land between the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 exceeds the amount stipulated in this ruling. Thus, the plaintiff 1's claim of this case is without merit.

2) Determination as to Plaintiff 2’s claim

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the appraisal by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1’s appraisal of evidence Nos. 14, 15, 2-3, and 4, Plaintiff 2’s legitimate compensation for business rights and obstacles (including the floor packaging section at the entrance of the access road, wastewater tank, underground reservoir, water tank, 300mm and 60 meters water pipe) operated by Plaintiff 1 on the land owned by Plaintiff 1 may be recognized as constituting 90,052,00.

Therefore, with respect to the instant land to Plaintiff 2, the Defendant, as the project implementer, is obligated to pay to Plaintiff 2 4,590,750 won (i.e., 90,052,00 won - 85,461,250 won), which is the difference between the reasonable compensation calculated according to the result of the court’s appraisal as above and the compensation for objection (i.e., the amount of KRW 90,052,00), and to pay 5% interest per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from March 10, 2010 to March 29, 201, which is the date of the adjudication of this case, and 20% interest per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings,

3) Determination as to Plaintiff 3’s claim

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence 3-4 through 8, it may be recognized that the plaintiff 3 filed a report with the administrative agency on the completion date of the completion plan of December 31, 1994 on the building area of 993 square meters and the factory of 342.6 square meters of the building area of 1706 square meters in Yang-si, Yangju-si ( Address 1 omitted) on April 28, 1994. However, with respect to the construction of a legitimate factory building on the above land and the use of the above land as a factory site, it is insufficient to recognize it only with the statement in Eul evidence 3-9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff 3's assertion that the above Yang-si ( Address 1 omitted) 1706 square meters should be evaluated as the factory site.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff 2's claim of this case is justified, and the plaintiff 1 and 3's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim Su-cheon (Presiding Judge) Na Jong-hun