1. Of the instant lawsuit, the claim for accommodation of remaining land of the area of two square meters in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is KRW 1,512,500 and its related thereto.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business Approval and Public Notice - Construction of roads in front of C apartment (hereinafter “instant project”) - May 24, 2012 - The Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Public Notice D- Project Operator: Defendant

B. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City local land expropriation ruling (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”) on December 28, 2012 - The subject of expropriation: Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City E-road (i.e., the general residential area of 183 square meters and 121 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff - The date of expropriation commencement: - Compensation for losses on February 15, 2013 - Compensation for losses: 219,212,150 won (the Plaintiff received after reservation)

C. The Central Land Tribunal made an objection on February 20, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant objection”) - The amount of compensation for losses shall be increased to KRW 221,527,750 as a result of the appraisal of the objection (the Plaintiff received the said increased portion after the reservation)

D. 1) The instant land was divided into a residential area on March 15, 2012 into a 306 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”), and the land category prior to the said division was changed to a road upon the application of the Masung Housing Co., Ltd., the owner as of December 9, 1996.

After that, on August 21, 2009, the ownership of the instant land was transferred to the Plaintiff due to a compulsory auction by official auction.

3) The council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment was to install a fence on the ground of 31 square meters among the instant land, and to use the inside as the said apartment site. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Southern District Court 2009Da73671, which sought the removal of the said fence and the delivery of the said 31 square meters portion on December 1, 2010, and won the case. The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the said judgment was final and conclusive at that time.]