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

(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project name: B (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - Project operator: Defendant - Public announcement of the project implementation plan: D public announcement of the Busan Metropolitan City captain-gun on the date C;

B. 1) A part of land was incorporated into a business site in the instant case, in which the Plaintiff-owned Busan-gun E, Busan-gun, 585 square meters divided into 27 square meters on January 7, 2015, and 41 square meters in G field on April 23, 2015, and was incorporated into the instant business site. On January 7, 2015, from 291 square meters in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, the Plaintiff-owned land divided into 134 square meters from 134 square meters in I field on January 7, 2015, and was incorporated into the instant business site (hereinafter “the Plaintiff-owned land prior to the division”) (hereinafter “the Plaintiff-owned land”), and the remaining E-Y and 157 square meters in H field as “the remaining land”.

(2) On the other hand, the remaining land of this case was divided into the instant project site on January 7, 2015 from the J-gun, J-gun, Busan, the Plaintiff’s mother (hereinafter “J-gun”). Meanwhile, on January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff was incorporated into the instant project site.

3) The Plaintiff’s land before subdivision was used as a site for MY, and the Plaintiff’s land before subdivision was installed with a board or used as a parking lot, and the Plaintiff’s land located in Busan-gun E-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun H 291 square meters was used as a tree, or as access. C. The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication on compensation for the remaining land in this case - The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee, claiming compensation for losses arising from the decline in the value of the remaining land in this case. However, on October 30, 2017, the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the remaining land in this case cannot be deemed as a site for a rest area, and that there was no difference in the remaining land in the situation before and after incorporation (hereinafter “the result of the appraisal by the court”).

- The appraiser's land before subdivision and the J land before subdivision constitute a group of land belonging to the same owner, and part of which is the project in this case.