1. The Defendant’s KRW 137,943,910 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 23, 2015 to January 11, 2016.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project name (1) project approval and announcement: The public announcement of a B urban development project (1j) 2: The defendant;

B. Subject to the expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on May 21, 2015: The land owned by the Plaintiff is 42,449 square meters for D forest land, E forest land, and 7,556 square meters for E forest land (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

2) Compensation for losses: as stated in the column for “amount of adjudication on expropriation” in the separate sheet on the details of compensation.

3) An appraisal corporation: A national appraisal corporation, an appraisal corporation for a stock company, and a Sam Chang-si appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal for expropriation”)

(4) The date of commencement of expropriation: June 22, 2015.

As a result of the court's appraisal, the result of the court's entrustment of appraisal to the Japanese appraiser, Inc. (hereinafter "court appraiser", and the result of the court's entrustment of appraisal is referred to as "court appraisal") is as stated in the "court appraisal amount" column in the separate sheet of compensation details.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, each entry, the result of the commission of appraisal to the Japanese appraisal corporation of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a case where each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each of the court appraiser are not unlawful in the assessment methods, and there is no other's opinion in view of the remaining price factors except for the comparison of goods and services, but there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in the comparison of goods and services of a certain appraisal and assessment, unless there is any evidence to prove that there is an error in the comparison of goods and services of a certain appraisal and assessment, the more trust in any one of them within the discretion of the fact-finding court

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du25237, Oct. 9, 2008, etc.). In light of the above legal doctrine, in full view of the health care unit, the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire arguments, the acceptance ruling appraiser is deemed to have been rendered.