2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On April 18, 2012, the Defendant is the project implementer of the 4th (Public Notice C, September 23, 2011) construction project for opening access roads to the general industrial complex B (hereinafter “instant project”). On April 18, 2012, the 1,702 square meters of land D 1,702 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff was divided into 505 square meters of land and D 1,197 square meters of land, E forest land, and only 505 square meters of land and above ground obstacles were incorporated into the instant project, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer by consultation for public works on April 17, 2012.

B. On November 18, 201, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for the purchase of the remaining land or for compensation for construction expenses necessary for the remaining land due to the decline in the price of the remaining land on the surface of the second remaining land of this case, the Plaintiff filed an application for the adjudication of compensation for losses, claiming the compensation for the purchase of the remaining land of cement bricks, bricks, slabbridges, and 62.92 square meters (hereinafter “the instant housing”) or for the compensation for construction expenses necessary for the remaining land in Ysan-si, the Plaintiff left the remaining land as the remaining land due to the expropriation of 505 square meters of land in Ysan-si (hereinafter “the remaining land of this case”).

C. On March 20, 2014, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for compensation for losses on the following grounds.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the remaining land is changed by accepting it, the remaining area is relatively larger than the remaining area, and the remaining area is determined as usable for the previous purpose due to the increase in the ratio of the remaining area (70%) of the remaining area (70%). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s remaining land is not acceptable.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the value decline in D forest 1,197 square meters (total area of 1,702 square meters, incorporated area of 505 square meters, and preserved area), which is the remaining land of the Plaintiff, is deemed to have no value decline in consideration of various factors such as utilization conditions and individual factors after being incorporated into public works as a result of a request for appraisal and assessment.