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

A. On December 30, 2005, the Plaintiff had designated and publicly announced the said site as a planned area for housing site development on the E district with respect to the area of 1,233,000 square meters per day of Kimhae-si and Cri (Ddong in each of the present Kimhae-si), and the Minister of Construction and Transportation designated and publicly announced the said site as a planned area for housing development.

(PublicationF of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation).

On March 26, 2009, the Gyeongnam-do governor approved the designation, alteration and development plan of the project area of this case and publicly notified the designation, alteration and development plan.

(G) Gyeongnam-do Notice G.

On October 2009, the Plaintiff, on March 24, 2014, installed a 3 greenhouse 1,083 square meters of H-si, Kimhae-si and 1,017 square meters of 1,017 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) in the instant business district, which was located within the instant business district, in which the Plaintiff installed a freezing warehouse inside the said 3 greenhouse and its inside the said 1,017 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”). The Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff, installed the flusium (hereinafter referred to as the “instant obstacles”) and the underground water facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “instant underground water facilities”).

(See Attached Form 1). (d)

The Defendant completed each registration of ownership transfer on the ground of expropriation on March 24, 2014, with respect to the above H 1,083 square meters on the ground of a consultation on December 2, 2013.

E. On June 2015, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to compensate for the instant obstacles and the instant groundwater facilities.

F. The Defendant filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Central Land Expropriation Committee. On December 8, 2016, the Central Land Expropriation Committee dismissed the application for adjudication with the purport that the instant obstacles and the instant groundwater facilities were not subject to compensation for losses pursuant to Article 25 of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 14711, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) on the grounds that there was no evidence that there was no evidence that the said facilities were installed after March 26, 2009, and that the said installation was permitted.

G. Meanwhile, the Defendant on June 10, 2015.