1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,806,40 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from May 29, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) Project approval and public notice 1): The project name: B of the State-funded Packaging Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) in the year 2013.

2) The project implementer: The project implementer of the Jeonnam-do is delegated by the Do Governor of the Republic of Korea, or the Defendant, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Gu Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs of the Republic of Korea (amended by Ordinance No. 3777, Dec. 26, 2013) with respect to the instant project, such as land purchase, compensation, etc.

3 Notice: Jeonnam-do Notice on September 5, 2013

B. The date of the adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee (1) on expropriation: The date of expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee: 1,401 square meters prior to D, D, 124 square meters prior to D, E, 765 square meters prior to E, E, 142 square meters prior to E (in the following cases, hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”) and F, and 3 square meters prior to G ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant obstacles”): Compensation for losses on April 15, 2014: 375,342,930 won calculated based on the arithmetic average of the results of each of the appraisal by two appraisal business entities (i.e., compensation for each of the instant lands: 359,449,600 won; 15,893,30 won prior to the date of each of the instant appraisal; 200 won; 3.00 square meters prior to the date of each of the aforementioned appraisers’ respective appraisal; 4.

2. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for each of the instant lands was set at a lower level without due consideration of the current status, etc. of each of the instant lands, the amount of compensation for the Plaintiff should be increased as much as the difference between the amount of compensation appropriately calculated by the appraisal conducted by the court (hereinafter “court appraisal”) and the amount of compensation determined by the expropriation ruling.

In addition to the above argument, the plaintiff is not guilty in the selection of the standard land for comparison of the appraisal of expropriation, the similar transaction cases, and the omission of farming compensation.