1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 81,99,800 and KRW 20,000 among them, the Defendant shall: (a) from January 15, 2016 to January 18, 2017; and (b) 61.

1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;

(a) project approval and public notice - Urban Planning Facility Project approval and public notice - Urban Planning Facility Project (Hanam-si B, hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - C public notice of Hanam-si ( February 6, 2015), D public notice of Hanam-si ( October 28, 2015): Defendant

(b) The date of adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal - The date of adjudication on expropriation: November 30, 2015 - The date of commencement of expropriation: Each land indicated in the column for “subject to expropriation” in the attached Form owned by the Plaintiff located in the instant project area (hereinafter “each land of this case”) - Compensation: The amount indicated in the column for “adjudication on expropriation” in the attached Form for compensation:

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on the objection - The date of the ruling on the objection: November 24, 2016 - The amount indicated in the column for “award adjudication” in the attached Form 3.

D. The value of each of the instant lands calculated based on the result of appraiser E’s appraisal (hereinafter “court appraisal”) is as stated in the column of “court appraisal” among the details of “attached Form” compensation.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), court appraisal result, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant calculated the overly low compensation by evaluating the value of each land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay in addition to the difference between the legitimate compensation according to the court's appraisal result and the compensation for objection.

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, in case where each appraisal and each court appraiser, which form the basis of the judgment, are not unlawful in the method of appraisal, and there is no other's opinion in view of the price situation factors except for the comparison of goods and others, but there is a difference in the result of appraisal due to a somewhat different relation with the comparison of goods and others, so long as there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is an error in the content of the comparison of goods and others of any appraisal.