1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,491,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 11, 2015 to July 6, 2017, as well as the following.

1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;

(a) project approval and notice - Public notice of urban planning facility project (B): C Public notice of April 11, 2014;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation by September 17, 2015 - Subject to expropriation: The land indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “instant land”) shall be deemed the land, and when referring to the Ddong land located in Chungcheongnam-si, it shall be specified only with the Dong index with the Dong index): The compensation for losses shall be as specified in the attached Table.

- The date of commencement of expropriation: An appraisal corporation on November 10, 2015 - An appraisal corporation, an appraisal corporation, and an appraisal corporation on a large scale (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal”) and an appraisal corporation, and the results of the appraisal are referred to as “appraisal of adjudication.”

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on April 21, 2016 - Details of adjudication: The Plaintiff’s rejection of an objection - An appraisal corporation: a country’s appraisal corporation and Samsung Appraisal Corporation;

D. The result of this Court’s entrustment of appraisal to appraiser E (hereinafter referred to as “court appraisal”) - Compensation for losses: The same shall apply to the statement in the separate sheet.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number), Eul evidence 3 to 6, the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion and appraisal, 67 square meters and G land (hereinafter “instant land”) among F land assessed as road status in the Plaintiff’s assertion and appraisal are not de facto private roads, and thus, it should be evaluated as a site that is a land category in the public register.

Nevertheless, the appraisal of the instant land is erroneous by deeming the instant land as a de facto private road, and the compensation for losses as prescribed in the appraisal of the adjudication on the entire land of this case, including the said land, is unreasonable because it considerably falls under the market price.

The court appraisal is assessed as 2,436,500/m2 of the unit price of 7m2 out of H site and F site, and thus, the compensation for the instant land shall also be calculated by applying the above unit price.

Therefore, the defendant.