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

(a) Project approval and the name of the public announcement: The public announcement of the B project (hereinafter referred to as the "project" in this case): C project operator announced at the port on April 26, 2011: D Urban Development Association;

(b) Objects to be expropriated on May 31, 2018 by the Central Land Tribunal of Gyeongbuk-do: 131,205,000 won in cases of goods impeding E's whereabouts and compensation for losses for goodwill:

C. The Defendant’s judgment on November 22, 2018 (hereinafter “instant objection”): Compensation for losses: 131,205,000 won increased to KRW 141,093,00 [based on recognition] from 131,205,00 won; the fact that there is no dispute; the entries or images of evidence A Nos. 1 and 5 (if there are serial numbers, including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The gist of the defense prior to the merits falls under the grounds for illegality of the Plaintiff’s objection, and in the case of a lawsuit on the increase of compensation, the D Urban Development Association, the executor of the instant project, must be the Defendant. Therefore, the lawsuit against the Defendant, the ruling authority, is unlawful.

B. According to Article 20(1) of the former Administrative Litigation Act, an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the ground that there is an error inherent in the adjudication by the said Committee, shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the original copy of the adjudication by the said Committee as

The plaintiff below

3.(a)

As seen in the paragraph, the lawsuit of this case was brought with the assertion that there was an error of law inherent in the judgment of this case and sought the revocation of the above judgment. Unlike whether the plaintiff's assertion is well-grounded, as long as the plaintiff sought the revocation of the judgment of this case for the above reasons, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law that erroneously designated the defendant in the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the defendant'

3. Whether the judgment on the objection of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion is incorporated into the business of this case.