1. Compensation for losses and new passage due to the decline in the value of the remaining land among the lawsuits against the plaintiff's conjunctive defendant.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: Water resources development project (B; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): Public notice of project authorization: Daejeon Regional Land Management Office on February 27, 2014 - Project implementer C: Defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation;

B. Determination of expropriation and use made on October 22, 2015 by Defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): D 409 square meters (hereinafter “instant expropriation”) owned by the Plaintiff: 740 square meters out of 5,486 square meters (hereinafter “land to be used in this case”) in the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff owned: The date of expropriation and use commencement: November 23, 2015 (one year from the first day of commencement of the period of use): Compensation 31,349,850 won for the instant land; compensation 1,816,70 won for the instant land; the appraisal corporation: the appraisal corporation, the Pacific appraisal corporation, the Pacific appraisal corporation, and the Raban.

C. Defendant Central Land Expropriation’s ruling on objection (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) on March 24, 2016 - KRW 31,942,900, the compensation for the instant land is increased to KRW 1,850,000, respectively, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s objection is all dismissed. - An appraisal corporation: A certified public appraisal corporation; one appraisal corporation (hereinafter “adjudication appraiser”) [based on recognition] did not dispute, and written evidence Nos. 6, B, B, 1,5, and 6 (including number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The primary argument by the parties is that the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant expropriation ruling by asserting that the instant expropriation ruling was unlawful, and at the same time, seeking an increase in compensation for losses on the premise that the instant expropriation ruling is lawful and effective. If the Plaintiff seeks to ultimately seek compensation for losses, it would be logical contradictions, and if it is intended for the Plaintiff to seek compensation, it would be the implementer of the instant project