1. The Defendant’s KRW 255,631,550 to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 7, 2015 to March 21, 2016.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business approval and public notice - General taxi industry complex development project (class 2 general industrial complex) - project operator No. 2013-369 of the Gyeonggi-do public notice on December 5, 2013, May 29, 2014 - Project operator No. 2014-151 of the Gyeonggi-do public notice on May 29, 2014

(b) Adjudication on expropriation made on December 23, 2014 by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal - Land Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands,” and each land is referred to as “land number only”) indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff, etc. - The starting date of expropriation: February 6, 2015 - Compensation for losses: Total sum of KRW 14,987,859,660, KRW 4,276,147,500 of each of the instant lands among the total of KRW 14,97,859, and KRW 660 - An appraisal corporation

C. Determination by the Central Land Tribunal on June 25, 2015 - Compensation for losses: Total 15,130,389,450 won - An appraisal corporation - An appraisal corporation: Alban appraisal corporation, a stock company, a stock company, and an appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication appraiser”), - No dispute over the result of the appraisal / [Grounds for recognition]; the records in subparagraphs 1 and 2, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 1 evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and appraisal made an error in the selection of the compensation preference as well as in the correction of other factors, and it was unfairly low in comparison with the compensation preference, and the correction of other factors is reasonable to make a decision by setting off the three decimal places in the third decimal place of the correction rate calculated. However, if the two decimal places are less than five, it is reasonable to arbitrarily apply the same to not less than 0, and not less than 6, to the Plaintiffs unfavorably, thereby making an excessive low evaluation of each of the lands of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the reasonable amount of compensation according to the court appraisal and the amount of compensation stipulated in the objection ruling, and damages for delay.

B. Facts of recognition 1 each of the instant cases, including the current status of each of the instant lands.