1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,012,00 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 5, 2019 to January 12, 2021.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) recognition and publication of a project - name of a public housing project: (B) - The Korea Land and Housing Corporation - The Public Notice: December 28, 2016; C Public Notice of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport;

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee on October 10, 2019 - The adjudication subject to expropriation - The land expropriation committee on October 10, 2019 - The land expropriation date of 480 square meters and 330 square meters per annum per Dong-gu, Seoyang-si: December 4, 2019 - The compensation for losses: the stock company F and the stock company G;

(c) The appraisal results of this Court (hereinafter “the appraisal results of this Court”): 562,950,00 won (based on recognition”) - The appraisal values of this Court are without dispute; entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number); the appraisal results of this Court’s entrustment of appraisal; the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The compensation for losses determined by the Plaintiff’s alleged expropriation decision is not reasonable by evaluating the value of the land subject to expropriation excessively lowers the value of the land subject to expropriation. As such, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the difference between the reasonable compensation due to the court’s appraisal and the compensation for losses as determined by the adjudication

B. 1) In a lawsuit as to the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, in a case where each appraisal and the court appraiser’s appraisal and assessment, which form the basis of the adjudication on expropriation, have no illegality in the appraisal methods, and there is no other difference in the appraisal result due to the comparison with the goods, etc., but there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in the comparison with the goods, etc. of each appraisal and assessment, reliance on any one of the appraisal and assessment belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decision 2012224092, Sept. 25, 2014, etc.). 2) In this case, health department, the result of the adjudication and the result of the court appraisal are deemed to have calculated compensation in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the content, method, etc. of each appraisal and assessment are different.