1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Details of confinement;

(a) Recognition and Public Notice of the Project - Housing Site Development Project (B district (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) - Public Notice C of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on December 13, 2006

(b) Project operator: Defendant;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on October 25, 2007 - Land subject to expropriation: Land listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”): 73,248,61,460 won - The starting date of expropriation: December 13, 2007

Contents of adjudication by the Central Land Tribunal on May 22, 2008 - Contents of adjudication: Increase of compensation for losses to KRW 74,309,087,010 - An appraisal corporation: The Korea Appraisal Board and the Korea Appraisal Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Appraisal Board"; hereinafter referred to as the "Adjudication Appraisal Board") and the Korea Appraisal Board Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Adjudication Appraisal Board") [based on recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap Nos. 1, 7 and 12 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) in the selection of a comparative standard place, it is unlawful to select and apply a comparative standard place (F 3,451 square meters in Ginpo City, Ginpo City) different from the comparative standard place of land (F 3,451 square meters in Ginpo City) by evaluating D land among each of the instant lands as “agricultural and forest area” (hereinafter “agricultural and forest area”). Since the land category, actual use status, or surrounding environment, other than the specific use area, is more similar than the above E-standard place of land, the selection of F land as a comparative standard place of D land is unlawful.

(2) In the assessment of individual factors, ① all of the instant lands are owned by the same person, and most of them are inseparably used for the same purpose as a complex, and thus, they are evaluated as being classified into each parcel and evaluated as having been created as a blind site or opened in the width and system of street. ② Since each of the instant lands is a housing site candidate site, the housing site preparation conditions are also evaluated as one of individual factors.