1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,281,360 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 11, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and announcement 1) Project name: A public announcement of Kimhae-si development project (2) on August 29, 2013, C public announcement of Kimhae-si on January 29, 2015, and D public announcement of Kimhae-si on January 29, 2015: Defendant

B. Objects to be expropriated by a local land expropriation committee on April 28, 2015: E forest land in Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

) and its ground graves (hereinafter referred to as “instant obstacles”).

(2) Compensation for losses: A total amount of KRW 1,351,495,720 (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal”) (hereinafter referred to as KRW 65,725,630 for the instant obstacles in KRW 1,285,70,090): The date of commencement of expropriation: (c) June 17, 2015; (d) the Central Land Expropriation Committee’s objection on the instant land and obstacles; (e) the objection on September 17, 2015; and (e) the appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal” among the aforementioned appraisers); and (e) the amount of compensation calculated by taking an arithmetic mean of the results of the appraisal; and (e) the appraisal shall be deemed as “adjudication”.

A person shall be appointed.

D. According to the court’s entrustment of appraisal with the appraiser F of this Court, compensation for the land and obstacles of this case based on the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal with the appraiser F of this Court (hereinafter “court appraiser”) is KRW 1,401,77,080 (=305,847,580 of the land of this case) (i.e., KRW 95,929,50 of the transfer cost for the obstacles of this case).

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the result of the commission of appraisal to appraiser F by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The compensation determined by the expropriation ruling on the land and obstacles of the Plaintiff’s assertion falls short of a justifiable compensation. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the reasonable compensation and the compensation determined by the expropriation ruling.

However, since the appraisal amount of the court appraiser shows a lot of differences from the current market price, the amount above 10% of the court appraisal is legitimate.