1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On December 5, 2013, pursuant to Articles 88 and 91 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the “National Land Planning Act”), the Kimpo-si Urban Planning Facility Project, the Kimpo-si, expressed that the Plaintiff of Kimpo-si, as shown in the attached Table 1, was G confirmation and packing Corporation, but C confirmation and packing Corporation is a regular name; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”), approved the implementation plan (hereinafter referred to as the “instant authorization”), and announced it as D public notification of Kimpo-si.

On March 23, 2015, the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal established the commencement date of expropriation on May 7, 2015, and made an adjudication on the expropriation of 88 square meters for compensation 26,532,000 square meters for 26,532,000 square meters for 39,726,000 square meters for 49,726,000 won for compensation owned by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the local Land Tribunal of Gyeonggi-do seeking revocation of the adjudication set forth in the above B-Ba (Seoulcheon District Court 2015Guhap1414). The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was illegal by rendering a ruling without making an investigation into the Plaintiff’s degree of damage to fish farm business due to noise and vibration, etc. generated by the instant project, and the impact assessment of gas tanks, which are dangerous facilities nearby, such as explosion risk, etc., or taking measures therefor. However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on November 24, 2016.

The Plaintiff appealed against this and appealed, but all of which were dismissed.

(hereinafter “Related Administrative Litigation” (hereinafter “Related Administrative Litigation”). [The grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, the entry of Eul No. 1-3 and Eul No. 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings] The noise and vibration generated from the project of this case by the Plaintiff’s assertion may hinder the growth of snish snishing, which are located in the plaintiff’s aquaculture located at a point specified in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant aquaculture”).

Nevertheless, the defendant does not conduct an environmental impact assessment while running the business of this case.

The defendant is the business of this case around September 2016.