1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 80,070,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 11, 2016 to May 12, 2017.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project name: B housing redevelopment and rearrangement project - Project implementer: Defendant - Public notice: Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notice on April 26, 2012;

(b) Decision on expropriation made by the local Land Tribunal on April 22, 2016 - The date of expropriation: June 10, 2016 - The date of expropriation: Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D-6,800 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”): Compensation: 4,936,800,000 won - The appraisal corporation and the appraisal corporation that are the same appraisal corporation.

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on January 19, 2017 - Compensation: 5,014,218,000 won - An appraisal corporation: The State’s appraisal corporation and the Korea Land Appraisal Corporation, a stock company, and a third-party appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisals on an objection”); the result of the appraisal is referred to as “the result of the appraisal on an objection”).

D. As a result of the court appraiser E’s appraisal, the court appraiser E calculated the compensation of the instant land at KRW 5,094,288,000.

(hereinafter the above appraiser shall be referred to as "court appraiser", and the result of the appraisal shall be referred to as "court appraisal result" / [based on the recognition] without a dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 4 (including number), Eul evidence 4 and 5, Eul evidence 4 and 5, the result of the appraisal by the court appraiser, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion appraiser assessed the amount of under-paid compensation by excessively lowering the value of the instant land. As such, the Defendant should additionally pay to the Plaintiff the difference between the reasonable compensation according to the court’s appraisal result and the compensation according to the appraisal result.

3. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

4. In the lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of the judgment compensation, both the appraisal by each appraisal agency and the appraisal by each appraiser selected by the court are not illegal in the assessment methods, and there are different opinions in the consideration of the remaining price assessment factors except for the comparison of goods, but only the comparison of goods is somewhat different.