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

(a) Contents of the project - Project name: Urban planning facility project (B) (hereinafter “instant project”): Defendant;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on July 17, 2014 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): The Plaintiff’s housing of 43 square meters located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu (hereinafter “instant building”): The date of commencement of expropriation - Compensation: 23,650,00 won on September 10, 2014 - The Land Appraisal Corporation: the Land Appraisal Corporation and the Land Appraisal Corporation (based on recognition): The fact that there is no dispute with the Land Appraisal Corporation and the Land Appraisal Corporation (based on recognition), Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 1, 2-1, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount of compensation stipulated in the adjudication on acceptance of the instant case is too small and thus contravenes the principle of fair compensation.

The instant building is an unauthorized building that has been lawfully maintained for at least 32 years on the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Plaintiff paid occupation and use fees each year. As such, the Plaintiff’s compensation for the right to use the land ought to be granted.

B. In a lawsuit seeking increase in compensation for loss, the burden of proving that the amount of reasonable compensation exceeds the amount of compensation stipulated in the ruling of expropriation or the ruling of objection is the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2255, Nov. 28, 1997). The statement of evidence Nos. 3 through 6 alone in the lawsuit claiming increase in compensation for loss of the building of this case exceeds the amount of compensation recognized in the ruling of expropriation of this case.

or the appraisal based on the above expropriation ruling is not deemed unlawful, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On the other hand, while the plaintiff is asserting compensation for the right to use land, there is no evidence to prove that he had undergone the adjudication procedure on this matter, and even if so, it is about the land of this case, which is public property as alleged by the plaintiff.