1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,789,480 as well as 5% per annum from June 30, 2017 to April 16, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project name: Ansan-si Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (2j) - Project implementer: Defendant - Public announcement of project approval of Ansan-si on June 2, 2015; and D public notification of Ansan-si on July 21, 2015;

B. The ruling of expropriation by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on May 15, 2017 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”) - Land listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant land”), buildings and obstacles (hereinafter “instant building and obstacles”) - The starting date of expropriation: June 29, 2017 - Compensation for losses: KRW 514,515,430 (i.e., the instant building and obstacles of the instant land KRW 381,024,40) - The land of this case and the land of this case KRW 13,491,030: E and F.

C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on July 19, 2018 (hereinafter “instant objection”) - Compensation for losses: 532,569,680 won (i.e., the instant building and obstacles in the instant land at KRW 396,026,520) - An appraisal corporation: G and H

D. Results of appraisal I by the court appraiser I - Compensation for losses for the land of this case: 418,816,00 won (the building of this case and the obstacles are entirely removed and thus the appraisal is not made) 【Ground for recognition'; 【No dispute exists; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5-1, 2, 5-2, 1-4, and 1-4, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of appraisal by appraiser I ;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The compensation determined by the Plaintiff’s instant objection ruling did not properly reflect the pertinent value of the instant land, the instant building, and the obstacles owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, compensation for the plaintiff should be increased by 20% based on the amount of the objection of this case.

B. In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation 1, each appraisal and the court appraiser’s appraisal and assessment, which form the basis for the ruling, do not constitute an unlawful cause in the assessment methods, and do not exclude goods, etc.