1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 107,640,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 18, 2017 to the day of full payment.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business Name - Business Name : B> Purpose Road Opening Project: B>> - Project implementer: Defendant - Public notice C on September 22, 2015

B. The Central Land Expropriation Commission’s ruling on May 18, 2017 - Subject to expropriation: 2,744 square meters [2,744 square meters of E forest land and 2,744 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”) owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant land subject to expropriation is 2,340 square meters of land remaining before the instant subdivision according to the expropriation of the instant land (i.e., 5,084 square meters - 2,744 square meters of land before the instant subdivision) - The date of the commencement of expropriation: July 11, 2017 - Compensation: 589,548,400 square meters (i.e., 214,850 square meters x 2,744 square meters)

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s adjudication on November 9, 2017 - Summary of the adjudication: With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for expropriation of the remaining land of this case or for compensation for price decrease, it is possible to use the remaining land of this case as forest for the previous purpose due to the large area and shape of the remaining land of this case, and the appraisal (hereinafter “adjudication”) is confirmed to have no price decrease. The land before the division of this case is confirmed to have no price decrease. The land before the division of this case is confirmed to have been in the past, as the Defendant is scheduled to install a drainage, and the land before the division of this case is likely to have access to the remaining land of this case, so it cannot be deemed to have suffered a loss due to the interruption of passage. The purport of the entirety of the pleadings is that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be deemed to have been rejected [based on recognition] without dispute. For this reason, the Plaintiff’s claim shall not be dismissed, the evidence No. 1, No. 2, No.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The land of this case is expropriated on the land before the partition of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the legal surface and dives are installed on the boundary of the remaining land of this case. As the access to the remaining land of this case is de facto impossible, and there is a decrease in its price, the Defendant shall be paid compensation for losses due to price decrease to the Plaintiff.