A. On June 24, 2013, the Defendant established an implementation plan for the “B business”, which is a river business, and announced the said project implementation plan as C publicly notified by the Seoul Regional Land Management Office, and the Plaintiff’s Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) was included in the said project area.

B. On July 21, 2016, the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered each expropriation ruling (hereinafter “each of the instant expropriation rulings”) on the instant land as to the instant land, and on August 25, 2016, each of the above expropriation rulings (hereinafter “each of the instant expropriation rulings”) on the instant land obstacles (hereinafter “instant obstacles”). The details of the compensation for losses set forth in each of the instant expropriation rulings are as follows.

Compensation for land: 263,329,500 won (the date of commencement of expropriation of land: September 13, 2016): 14,683,00 won (the date of commencement of expropriation of land: October 18, 2016): 278,012,50 won:

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit by asserting that each of the instant expropriation rulings was unfair, and the instant court entrusted the appraiser E with the appraisal of the instant land and obstacles.

The results of the entrustment for expert appraisal (hereinafter referred to as "the results of the above entrustment for expert appraisal", and the appraiser shall not state his/her name and shall be referred to as "court appraiser" as follows:

Compensation for land loss: 16,272,00 won (based on recognition): 296,95,000 won (based on recognition); statements in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branches number; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul evidence 1 through 6; hereinafter the same shall apply); the result of the court appraisal; the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The amount of compensation stipulated in each of the instant expropriation rulings regarding the Plaintiff’s land and obstacles falls short of the reasonable amount of compensation. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the increased amount of compensation and damages for delay as stated in the purport of the claim.