1. The following amount among the part against the defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation in the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Details of ruling;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each obstacles indicated in the 8,809 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si G warehouse site, 1,254 square meters in H forests and fields, and the details of compensation for obstacles on the ground.

(b) Business authorization and public notice - B housing site development project (C; hereinafter “instant project”) - The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’s notice on May 30, 2008 (D), the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’ notice on November 29, 2010 (E), and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’ notice (F) on January 3, 2012: Defendant Corporation.

(c) The Defendant Committee’s ruling of acceptance on January 23, 2014 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”): Each obstacles indicated in the details of compensation for obstacles attached to the Plaintiff’s ownership (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): The starting date of expropriation: March 18, 2014 - Compensation: 19,783,320 won - the appraisal corporation: the appraisal corporation and the appraisal corporation;

D. The Defendant Committee’s ruling on August 21, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) - In addition to compensation for the water pipes (outside, 180 meters) with omission of compensation among the obstacles indicated in the details of compensation for obstacles to the attached Form 22,325,00 won - An appraisal corporation: A new appraisal corporation, a stock company, a Pacific appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal”) and a Pacific appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal”) combined with each appraisal result; hereinafter “adjudication”).

(e) ADI’s appraisal results (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - Increase in the sum of 21,430,000 won for each obstacles listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 4, and 5 Nos. 2, 5 [Grounds for Recognition], Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the appraisal commission to I for the party-by-case appraiser No. 1, the whole purport of the pleadings, as a whole,

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the prior defense of the Defendant Committee are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is just in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.