1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,502,890 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 30, 2017 to January 30, 2019, and the following.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business title - Business title: A housing redevelopment project (II elementary school redevelopment rearrangement project (IIj) in the area adjacent to the B elementary school) - A project operator: Defendant - A public announcement of the project approval on June 2, 2015; and D public notification at Ansan-si on July 21, 2015;

B. The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 15, 2017 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): The starting date of expropriation: Land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table of Real Estate owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) and obstacles listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table of Real Estate List of Attached Real Estate (hereinafter “instant obstacles”) - The amount of compensation for losses on the instant land: 443,583,600 won (hereinafter “adjudication of expropriation”)

C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on July 19, 2018 (hereinafter “instant objection”) - Compensation amount for losses from the instant land: 463,387,110 won (hereinafter “appraisal of the objection”)

D. Results of the appraiser E’s market price appraisal of this Court (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - Compensation amounting to 478,890,000 won for the land of this case (the obstacles of this case were already completed at the time of execution of the appraisal and excluded from the appraisal) / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, each entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of pages), the result of the appraiser E’s market price appraisal, the whole purport of the pleadings.

2. Considering the transaction cases of neighboring land, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that both the appraisal of expropriation adjudication, its objection adjudication, and the court appraisal do not comply with the standards for reasonable compensation for loss as prescribed by the relevant statutes.

3. In a lawsuit seeking an increase or decrease in the compensation for expropriation for the cause of the claim, where both the results of the adjudication and the results of the court appraisal do not constitute an unlawful cause in the evaluation methods and there is no evidence to prove that there exists any error in the evaluation methods, either of the results of each appraisal