1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,99,900 as well as 5% per annum from January 24, 2018 to April 4, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: B housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (II) - Public notice of project implementation authorization: Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City public notice of September 9, 2010 - Project implementer: Defendant;

B. Adjudication on expropriation made on November 29, 2017 by the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee - Subject to expropriation: Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”): 351,214,200 won - The date of commencement of expropriation: January 23, 2018.

Adjudication by the Central Land Tribunal on June 21, 2018 - Compensation for losses: 364,166,100 won

(d) Court appraisal - Results of appraisal - Written evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2-2, and 1-2 of evidence Nos. 1, 374, 166,00 won (based on recognition), and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of appraisal entrustment to E of this Court;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The party’s assertion is the same as the result of the court’s appraisal. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the result of the court’s appraisal and the amount of compensation for the instant ruling. 2) The Defendant court’s appraisal, while selecting a comparative standard, selected the reference land and land category different from that of the instant land as a comparative standard, and did not properly assess the land conditions and administrative conditions while comparing individual factors.

In addition, the court's appraisal did not present the basis for determining that the transaction case was not reflected in the development profit while determining the correction of other factors reflecting the transaction cases of neighboring land and buildings. In addition, in calculating the transaction amount of the part of the land in the transaction case, the re-purchasing cost of the underground floor of the building without any particular ground is 50% compared to the ground floor, and the remaining useful life of the building is merely 15 years, and the re-purchasing cost of the toilet in the building is the same as the re-purchasing cost of the underground floor of the building.

Therefore, the result of the court appraisal cannot be the legitimate amount of compensation for the land of this case.

B. The land use status of this case is recognized.