1. The Defendants’ respective Plaintiff KRW 22,336,680 per annum from July 16, 2014 to April 30, 2015.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Housing site development business name: housing site development business (B zone designated water secondarys): Public notice: C publicly announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on February 6, 2009 - Project operator: Defendants;

(b) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation by May 22, 2014 - those obstacles to the Plaintiff’s expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): Total amounting to KRW 81,845,00: Compensation for losses for the Plaintiff: the date of commencement of expropriation: the fact that there is no dispute on July 15, 2014 [based on recognition]; evidence Nos. 3, evidence Nos. 1 and 2; and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that this case’s obstacles were unfairly underassessment, and the compensation for operating losses was not duly made. As such, the Defendant should pay the difference between the compensation for losses and the compensation for losses as set forth in the instant expropriation ruling to the Plaintiff based on the court’s appraisal.

B. Determination 1) Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the result of the entrustment of appraisal to appraiser D (hereinafter " appraiser D" as "court appraiser"), and the result of the appraisal is "court appraisal".

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged. At the time of the adjudication of acceptance of the instant case, the Korea Appraisal Corporation and the Korea Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Appraisals of the instant adjudication”).

In this case, the appraisal of the obstacles of this case and compensation for suspension of work was conducted, and the compensation for the plaintiff was determined by taking an arithmetic mean of the appraisal results of the appraisers of this case.

The appraiser of the instant case received financial statements from the Plaintiff from 2011 to 2013 regarding the basis of calculation of the appraised value, and stated that the amount of compensation for suspension of work was adjusted based thereon.

However, the appraisal appraiser of this case set the price of the article on the list Nos. 13 through 30 as a whole.