1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,192,090 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 30, 2017 to November 29, 2018, and the following.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Housing redevelopment project (B) - Public notice: The defendant; the defendant;

B. The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 15, 2017 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”): The land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) and buildings and obstacles listed in paragraph (2) of the same list (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): Compensation for losses: KRW 928,281,450 for the instant land; KRW 80,096,420 for the instant obstacles; the date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation: An E Appraisal Corporation’s branch office, F Appraisal Corporation’s branch office (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”) for E Appraisal: the result of appraisal

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection on July 19, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) - Contents of the ruling: Each of the instant compensation for losses: KRW 969,687,190 for the instant land; and KRW 81,731,630 for the instant obstacles ( separate from additional dues 7,77,610 for delay); - An appraisal corporation: G appraisal corporation and H appraisal appraisal corporation’s branch offices (hereinafter “appraisal”)

D. Results of the appraiser I’s appraisal (hereinafter “court appraiser”) - Contents of appraisal: The appraiser’s appraisal of the instant land at KRW 1,005,879,280 (the obstacles of this case are destroyed or removed, and excluded from the appraisal): The fact that there is no dispute (the grounds for recognition); the entries (including number) in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4; the result of the appraiser I’s appraisal; the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the compensation for each of the land and obstacles of this case as set forth in the plaintiff's acceptance ruling and objection ruling was unfair because the compensation for losses was significantly less than the market price.

Therefore, it is true.