1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 277,424 and 5% per annum from June 16, 201 to February 7, 2013.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Housing site development projects (B zone housing site development projects); - On February 6, 2009, public notice of C, and D announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on January 6, 2010 - Project operator: Defendants

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on April 22, 201 - The Land Tribunal: 14/984 shares of 20,773 square meters of forest E-20,773 square meters (hereinafter “land 1”) in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City and 112 square meters prior to F (hereinafter “second land”) - The date of commencement of expropriation: June 15, 2011 - Compensation: 20,806,70 won: The Land Tribunal and the Land Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “Land Appraisal Corporation”) - The Land Appraisal Corporation, the Pacific (hereinafter “Land Appraisal Corporation”), and the result of the appraisal (hereinafter “appraisal”).

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on October 7, 201 – Increase the amount of compensation for losses to KRW 21,776,940 (including KRW 21,50,00 in shares of land No. 260,850 in land No. 21,50): An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation: A flood appraisal corporation, a joint stock company, a joint stock appraisal corporation, a joint stock company, and a joint stock appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “interested appraisal”) [based on recognition]] without any dispute; the entries in Gap, Nos. 2, and Eul, Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number); the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the amount of compensation for losses was underestimated due to defects in the results of each appraisal that served as the basis for the calculation of compensation for losses for the following reasons, and sought payment of the money stated in the purport of the claim as a reasonable compensation for shares in the first and second land.

(1) The appraiser considered the current status of the second land as the road, but since the second land is used together with the surrounding industrial site, it should be regarded as the industrial site.

Dor appraiser selected G 1,269 square meters as a comparative standard for the second land. However, considering the current status of the second land and the fact that H land site was the standard land at the time of calculating the officially assessed individual land price, the compared standard land should be H land.

References 1, 20