1. The Defendant’s KRW 211,166,60 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 8, 2017 to January 17, 2019.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business authorization and public announcement - Business title: Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project in Zone B (Secondary) - Public announcement of project implementation authorization: The Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City public announcement on March 18, 2016 - The defendant;

B. Adjudication on expropriation by July 14, 2017 of the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee - Land subject to expropriation: Land indicated in the column for “land subject to expropriation” in the attached Table on the attached Table (referring to land located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-dong. Of land, the portion of “Incheon Gyeyang-dong” is omitted and only the lot number is stated): The amount indicated in the “compensation for expropriation” in the attached Table - The date of commencement of expropriation: September 7, 2017.

Results of the court appraisal - The amount recorded in the “court appraisal result” column in the attached Table 1 / [based on recognition] Gap evidence 1 and 2, the result of this court's entrustment of appraisal to D and the fact inquiry result, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the reasonable compensation for the land to be expropriated by the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same as the result of the court’s appraisal, the Defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the court’s appraisal result of the land to be expropriated and the adjudication on expropriation to the

B. 1) In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for losses as a result of appraisal, unless there is any evidence to prove that both the result of appraisal and the result of the court appraisal are unlawful and there is no special error in the contents of the appraisal, whether to trust any one of the appraisal results belongs to the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu14779, Jun. 29, 1993; 2008Du22129, Mar. 26, 2009). In full view of the purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the court’s appraisal results and the result of the court’s appraisal are unlawful in the evaluation methods.

Since it is difficult to view that there are special errors in the appraisal contents or the appraisal contents, this court shall assess the price formation factors of the land to be expropriated by specifically comparing the individual factors between the land to be expropriated and the standard land to be expropriated

(q) as appropriate;