1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant is a project operator of the Category D Housing Site Development Project (Section 7 (hereinafter referred to as the "Projects of this case") that is being conducted in one source, such as Pyeongtaek-si C, etc., after being publicly announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 30, 2008.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si E (hereinafter “instant land”) at the time of expropriation of 54 obstacles, such as 1, 1, 2, 2, 20-ma, 20, 20-ma, and 2, 2, 2, and 54, including 2, 2, and 54, 2, and 54, respectively, on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).

On the ground of the instant land No. 1, the Plaintiff asserted that there were 10 mari, chickens 45,00, 600 to 60,000 mari, and 2 dongs (hereinafter “the instant additional obstacles, etc.”) on the ground of the instant land, and filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for the purpose of claiming additional compensation for the instant additional obstacles, etc. and for business losses incurred due to the suspension of business operations.

On November 19, 2015, the Central Land Expropriation Committee excluded the aforementioned additional obstacles from the scope of compensation, etc. on the ground that the existence of obstacles, etc. is not verified in the investigation report on the instant land Nos. 1 and 2, and rendered a ruling of expropriation on January 12, 2016 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”) with an indemnity amounting to KRW 60,618,250 in total, and the commencement date of expropriation as of January 12, 2016 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”), and the said written adjudication of expropriation was served on the Plaintiff on November 25, 2015.

(A) On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “instant objection”). On October 27, 2016, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the said objection (hereinafter “instant ruling”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff filed an objection 30 days after the date of delivery of the written ruling of acceptance of the instant case, and thus, is unlawful.”