The defendant is 5% per annum from January 31, 2019 to October 14, 2019 to the plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Name of the project that is recognized and published: The second project that is approved and published for the construction of the roads B: The defendant on March 27, 2017, Incheon Metropolitan City public notice C, and July 24, 2017:

B. Subject to the ruling on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on December 6, 2018: The date of commencement of expropriation of KRW 116,558,400 (= KRW 38,009,200, KRW 28,000 for land No. 78,549,200) in order of 116,558,400 square meters in E-ro, Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City, which owned the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “1 land, No. 2”).

Compensation for loss of a ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on July 25, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication”): 119,303,600 won (i.e., land 1 KRW 80,559,600)

(d) The appraised value of O’s results of appraiser G’s appraisal (hereinafter “court appraisal”): 125,051,200 won (i.e., land Nos. 84,436,800 won) (i.e., land No. 2 land No. 40,614,400)] without dispute; (ii) each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers); (iii) the results of appraiser G’s appraisal; (iv) the overall purport of the pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since each appraisal that forms the basis of the Plaintiff’s objection is erroneous in calculating the amount of compensation for losses due to a mistake in the selection of quasi-species and comparison of individual factors, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the difference between the amount of compensation for losses caused by the court’s appraisal and the amount of compensation for losses caused by the judgment, and the amount of delayed damages.

B. 1) Determination 1) In a lawsuit concerning an increase or decrease of compensation, the adoption of any one of the appraisal by a competent appraisal agency and a court appraiser’s appraisal by adopting any of the appraisal methods unless there is any evidence to prove that there is no illegality in the appraisal methods and there is no particular error in the appraisal contents, is within the discretion of the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4679, Jan. 28, 2005) and the above facts-finding and each of the evidence mentioned above, are examined as to the land 1 and 2.