Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a project operator who has obtained approval [the E- (O. 29, October 2015) from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy) of the implementation plan for the “D Business” (hereinafter “D Business”), which is an electric source development business that constructs two power generation facilities from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and the Plaintiff owned 654 square meters (hereinafter “instant dispute”) before Gangnam-si.

B. On June 8, 2017, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff to acquire the land to be incorporated in the project after approval of the project implementation plan of the instant case, but did not reach an agreement. The Defendant filed an application for adjudication, and the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered an adjudication to expropriate the instant land in KRW 153,19,500.

C. The Plaintiff asserted an increase in the compensation for the said adjudication on expropriation, but the Central Land Tribunal dismissed the said objection in the adjudication on April 26, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (Evidence Nos. 1 and 2) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that when calculating compensation in the adjudication of expropriation, the plaintiff is obliged to additionally pay compensation which is reasonable as assessed amount as assessed on the land in this case, since it is excessively low in the amount due to the illegality in the selection of comparative standard land, illegality in the calculation of individual factors and other factors, error in the application of specific-use area, etc.

On the other hand, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case and did not submit all evidence proving the illegality of the calculation of compensation as alleged during a period exceeding two years. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the compensation amount was illegally calculated as alleged by the plaintiff in the adjudication of expropriation of the dispute in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. Conclusion.