1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,713,90 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 14, 2015 to March 21, 2017.

1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;

(a) REDDD - Project operator: Defendant: B;

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on November 20, 2014 - Subject to expropriation: E road 3,411 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”): 1,779,689,250 won - The date of commencement of expropriation: the date of expropriation: the appraisal corporation on January 13, 2015 - the public appraisal corporation and the public appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal on expropriation”)

(c) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on October 22, 2015 - Details of the ruling: Increase the compensation for losses for the instant land in KRW 1,820,450,700 - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation other than an ordinary appraisal corporation and one corporation (hereinafter “Objection Ruling”).

D. Results of the court’s entrustment to appraiser F of this case - Contents of appraisal: Evaluation of compensation for losses for the land of this case as KRW 1,837,164,600 (hereinafter “court appraisal”) / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence No. 1-1 and evidence No. 5-1, each entry of evidence No. 1-5, and the result of the court’s entrustment to appraiser F of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the appraisal of expropriation and the appraisal of the objection on the land of this case are unfair by not reflecting the market price of the land of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the difference between the appraised value based on the result of the court appraisal and the amount of compensation as well as damages for delay.

(b) In cases of increase or decrease of compensation for expropriation in calculating the amount of legitimate compensation, where both the result of the adjudication and the result of the court appraisal are not unlawful in the methods of appraisal, and there is no evidence to prove that there are special errors in the contents of the appraisal, the more reliable trust in any of the results of each appraisal belongs to the discretion

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14779 delivered on June 29, 1993, etc.). In this case, an appraisal of acceptance is made.