Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(a) ABD public housing project: - Public housing project for B; - Public housing project for B (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”); - Public housing project for C on October 5, 2011;

B. On May 9, 2019, the Central Land Expropriation Committee did not dispute the instant case with respect to water compensation that interferes with the adjudication on expropriation on May 9, 2019, and thus, it does not appear separately.

- With respect to “D” operated by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim for business loss compensation is rejected on the ground that the Plaintiff did not continue its business.

C. The ruling of the Central Land Expropriation Committee on December 19, 2019 - The fact that there is no dispute over the rejection of the Plaintiff’s objection (based on recognition), the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On November 30, 2007, prior to the announcement date of the recognition of the instant project, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was registered as the business operator with the trade name “D” in the Overcheon-si E (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) located in the instant business district and continued to engage in the business of selling flowers, etc. until February 2019. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes the subject of compensation for business loss arising from the instant business.

around October 2016, when the Defendant announced the compensation plan for the instant project and visited the site for appraisal and assessment, the Defendant continued to operate the sales business through the Internet, etc., without being able to set a wind to kill most of the plants of the instant plant due to severe blights, etc., by temporarily moving a parts of the chemical site to another person’s workplace.

must be viewed.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s consent to voluntary removal of the workplace of this case around February 2019 prior to the adjudication of expropriation of this case is based on intimidation and coercion, and the Plaintiff’s consent to removal is based on the premise that the Plaintiff is selected as a person eligible for business compensation and cannot be seen as voluntary suspension of business. Thus, the Plaintiff continued to conduct business.