1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,891,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 13, 2016 to May 18, 2017.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Railroad construction project authorization (B; hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public notice of project implementation authorization: C- Project operator announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on December 9, 2014 - Project operator: Defendant;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on November 19, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant ruling of expropriation”) - The land subject to expropriation 2,523 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and E 95 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff - The date of expropriation: January 12, 2016 - Compensation for losses: The fact that there is no dispute over KRW 148,751,00 (which is the ground for recognition) 1,4, and Eul’s evidence 1 (including the number of branches; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although each of the instant lands on which the Plaintiff’s assertion should be previously assessed according to the actual situation, an appraiser at the time of the adjudication of expropriation (hereinafter “appraisal”) and the result of the appraisal is “adjudication”.

(2) Since each of the instant lands is assessed as forest land according to its land category and calculated under-calculated the amount of compensation, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the increased compensation and damages for delay thereof, as stated in the purport of the claim. (2) Since each of the instant lands alleged by the Defendant is a land whose form and quality was changed unlawfully from “forest” to “former”, the amount of compensation should be calculated based on “forest” which is the current state of use at

B. In addition to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of this Court’s appraiser Nos. 1 and 2, and the result of the appraisal by this Court’s appraiser F (hereinafter “court appraiser”) and the overall purport of the pleading, the adjudication appraiser evaluated each of the instant land as “forest”, while the court appraiser assessed each of the instant land as “B” and calculated the amount of compensation as follows.