1. The Defendant’s KRW 143,006,780 as well as 5% per annum from July 16, 2014 to October 7, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: Bogeumjari Housing Project (B Bourn Housing Project (hereinafter referred to as the "instant project"): The defendant: C public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 3, 2009, and D of the same public notice on November 16, 201;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 22, 2014 - The Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 2, 2014 - The land subject to the Plaintiff’s ownership: E, 132 square meters, F, F, 91 square meters, 1949/4032 shares in G, G, 2852 square meters, 1949/4032 shares in H, 189/4032 shares in H, 189 square meters, 462/126 shares in J, J, 763 square meters, 462/126 shares in J, K, 1,636 square meters, 1212/1957 shares in L, 321 square meters, and 192/1957 shares in G, each of the instant land is subject to expropriation on the premise that each of the instant land is subject to expropriation on the premise that each of the instant land is subject to expropriation on the basis of 1814.

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on February 26, 2015 - The Plaintiff’s rejection of an objection - An appraisal corporation: Gado appraisal corporation (including an appraiser for adjudication, and hereinafter “adjudication”) and an appraisal corporation (including an appraiser for adjudication on expropriation, and hereinafter “appraisal”) - Criteria for appraisal: The assessment is based on the premise that the present status of use of each of the lands of this case at the time of the adjudication on expropriation is “responding” [based for recognition]; there is no dispute over the premise that the present status of use at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of each of the lands of this case is “responding”; the evidence No. 1-5, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 2-1, evidence No. 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parts of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 F, G, I, J, K, and L are connected to each other, and the owner and specific use area are the same. Although the owner and specific use area of the stable’s site duly permitted for construction should be assessed as a group of land, the adjudication appraiser did not evaluate each of the above land as a group of land.