1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) project approval and public notice - project approval and public notice -bucheon City B (C) - September 26, 2008, Gyeonggi-do public notice F of Gyeonggi-do on July 5, 2012, Gyeonggi-do public notice E on March 25, 2014 - Project operator: Defendant

(b) The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 12, 2014 - Subject to expropriation: 1,448 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”): 331,592,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”): Compensation for losses: the date of commencement of expropriation: 331,592,000 won: - An appraisal corporation on June 26, 2014 - An appraisal corporation and the appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”) with respect to the third appraisal corporation and the appraisal corporation.

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on December 18, 2014 - Contents of the ruling: Increase the compensation for the land in this case to KRW 332,750,400; - An appraisal corporation: Sejong Appraisal Corporation and Samwon Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “Adjudgment on an objection”) [based on recognition]; the fact that there is no dispute; Gap’s statements in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 1 and 2; and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, appraisal of expropriation and appraisal of objection regarding the land of this case, are unfair by evaluating excessively the individual factors of the land of this case. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the compensation and the reasonable compensation and the damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that there is more reasonable amount of compensation than the amount of compensation stipulated in the judgment on the objection in the lawsuit claiming for increase in compensation for loss.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1226 Decided October 15, 2004, etc.). We examine whether the reasonable compensation with respect to the land of this case exceeds the compensation prescribed by the adjudication of objection, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the court’s entrustment of appraisal with appraiser H, it is recognized that the price at the time of the adjudication of expropriation of the land of this case is KRW 332,750,40, and this is the same as the appraisal of objection with respect to the land of this case.