1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 16, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Road C 192 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on the 19th day of the same month.

B. The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the head of Gangseo-gu”) approved an implementation plan for an urban planning project on April 6, 1996 pursuant to Articles 25 and 26 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243, Jan. 28, 200; hereinafter “Urban Planning Act”) and announced it on the 15th of the same month as follows.

(Public Notice No. 96-16 of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government - Types of projects: Urban planning project (road and sewerage): D: Construction of roads between D (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): The project section of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government c and E: 8m in width and 230m in length: the project period: March and December 1997 - Public Notice of the Determination of Facilities for Urban Planning (Road) on August 16, 197 (Public Notice No. 196 of Seoul Metropolitan Government) Decision on March 17, 1992 (Public Notice No. 1992-73 of Seoul Metropolitan Government) (Public Notice No. 1992-73).

C. On May 15, 199, the head of Gangseo-gu designated and publicly announced the section 0.54 km from the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F to G, including the instant land, as Gu road (H).

(Public Notice of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 1999-11).

On November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the expropriation of the instant land pursuant to Article 72 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) to the effect that the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Gangseo-gu”) used the instant land for more than three years from the time when the implementation plan for the instant project was publicly announced.

However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there was no agreement between the landowner and the project operator on the instant land, or there was no adjudication on the said land.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, and Eul.