1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,720,250 as well as 5% per annum from February 24, 2015 to February 14, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notification 1) Project name: A public notification of Changwon-si on October 10, 2013, and D 3 Project operator public notification of Changwon-si on November 6, 2014: Defendant;

B. The subject of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Gyeongnam-do on December 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant land”) is the E counter of Changwon-si, the E counter of Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) Compensation for losses: 568,620,000 won on February 23, 2015, the date of expropriation: (a) the Central Land Tribunal rendered compensation for losses on June 25, 2015: 571,164,750 won (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal”) : The Korea Land Tribunal’s adjudication on February 23, 2015: The Korea Land Tribunal, 571,164,750 won (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal”) : The appraisal corporation and the Pacific Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the said appraiser”) collectively; and (b) the amount

A person shall be appointed.

D. As a result of the instant court’s entrustment of appraisal by the appraiser F of this Court (hereinafter “court appraiser”), compensation for the instant land based on the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal with the appraiser F of this Court is KRW 573,885,000.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the court's appraisal commission to appraiser F, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the compensation determined by the expropriation ruling does not reach a legitimate compensation. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the reasonable compensation and the compensation determined by the expropriation ruling to the Plaintiff.

B. In litigation with respect to the increase or decrease of compensation for accepting the result of appraisal, each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal by the court appraiser, which form the basis of the adjudication on expropriation, have no illegality in the assessment methods, and there is no illegality in the remaining assessment factors except for the comparison of goods, and there is a difference in the appraisal results due to a somewhat different relation between the comparison of goods and the comparison of goods.