1. The Defendant’s KRW 161,808,630 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from December 29, 2017 to July 11, 2019.

The project approval and the name of the public announcement of the project as a result of the adjudication process and appraisal: The public announcement of the authorization for project implementation of the general industrial complex development project (C; hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case"): D public announcement of the king (C. December 28, 2016) and the E public announcement of Guang City ( October 18, 2017): The project implementer subject to expropriation of the adjudication on expropriation as of November 13, 2017 by the defendant Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal: The commencement date of expropriation of each land (hereinafter referred to as "each land in this case") indicated in attached Table 1 in attached Table 1: The compensation for losses on December 28, 2017: the amount indicated in the column of "compensation" in attached Table 2.

Compensation for losses incurred by the Central Land Tribunal on November 22, 2018: The compensation for losses indicated in attached Table 1 [Attachment 1] shall be as follows.

As a result of the appraisal conducted by the court appraiser F for each of the instant lands: Attached Table 1 [Attachment 1]

(hereinafter the above appraisal result is without dispute (hereinafter “court appraisal”), Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence appraisal result, appraiser F’s appraisal result, and land expropriation compensation increase or decrease as to the cause of claim of the entire pleadings. In case where each appraisal and the court appraiser’s appraisal, which form the basis of the judgment, are not illegal in the appraisal method, and there is no other reason for illegality in the appraisal method, and there is a difference in the appraisal result due to a somewhat different relation between the other price factors except for the category of goods, etc., although there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is an error in the appraisal contents, any more trust in each appraisal is within the discretion of the fact-finding court.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu14779, Jun. 29, 1993; 2012Du24092, Sept. 25, 2014). In the instant case, both the instant adjudication and the court’s appraisal are illegal in the assessment methods.