1. The Defendant’s KRW 300,630,301 as well as 5% per annum from February 7, 2015 to June 7, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business approval and public notice - General taxi industry complex development project (class 2 general industrial complex) - project operator No. 2013-369 of the Gyeonggi-do public notice on December 5, 2013, May 29, 2014 - Project operator No. 2014-151 of the Gyeonggi-do public notice on May 29, 2014

B. Adjudication on expropriation by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on December 23, 2014 - Land subject to expropriation: Land listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant land,” and each land is referred to as “each of the instant obstacles” only by the sequence listed in the separate sheet) and each obstacles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each obstacles of this case”): The starting date of expropriation: February 6, 2015 - Compensation: Totaling KRW 4,191,656,500 for each of the instant land, KRW 2,271,129,99 for each of the instant obstacles, KRW 2,000 for each of the instant land, KRW 2,271,129,99

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on June 25, 2015 - Compensation for losses: Total amounting to KRW 4,252,58,400 for each of the instant lands, and the rejection ruling on each of the instant obstacles (total amounting to KRW 2,242,583,00 as a result of the appraisal) - An appraisal corporation: A corporation for Alban appraisal, a corporation for one appraisal (hereinafter “appraisal”) and a corporation for one appraisal (hereinafter “adjudication appraisal”); the result of the appraisal is referred to as “appraisal”).

(d) The result of the appraisal commission made by the appraiser A of this Court - The aggregate amount of each of the lands of this case 4,578,032,70 won, the aggregate amount of each of the obstacles of this case 2,246,316,00 won [based grounds for recognition], the facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2,

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In calculating the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for each land of this case, the appraisal of judgment is not reasonable in revising other factors, and the selection of compensation example is also unreasonable in terms of comparison with the compensation example, and the correction of other factors is reasonable in terms of the third decimal place of the correction rate calculated. However, it is reasonable to arbitrarily determine the number of claims against the third decimal place.