1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice 1): B project name (hereinafter “instant project”);

2) A project implementer: 3) A public announcement of the authorization to implement a project on December 28, 2012 (referring to the project implementation period from 2005 to December 30, 2015).

B. Defendant’s expropriation ruling (hereinafter “instant adjudication”) dated July 26, 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant”) 1: The Appointor listed in the Attached Table 2 Nos. 1 and 3 Nos. 1 and 2 listed in the Attached Table 2 Nos. 2 and 2 listed in the Attached Tables 2 and 3 listed in the Attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) shall be classified into “each of the instant land”; collectively, “each of the instant land”; collectively, the articles listed in the Attached Table 3 Nos. 1 and 2 shall be classified into “instant goods”; collectively, “each of the instant items” shall be classified into “each of the instant items”; and all of them shall be referred to as “each of the instant items”.

(2) Compensation A) Plaintiff 1’s land: 67,518,900 won; 33,640,000 won for the instant land: 40,79,700 won for the instant land; 59,475,740 won for the instant two goods; 59,475,740 won for the instant land; 1 through 21; 21 items for the instant land; 33,640 won for the entire pleadings; and 33,640 won for the instant land; and 59,475,740 won for the instant land for the instant case; hereinafter the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the decision of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner due to the following reasons.

(1) The regular Eup/Myeon filed an application for the adjudication of this case with the lapse of the period of application for adjudication under Article 28(1) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Act No. 11468, Jun. 1, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(2) The regular Eup/Myeon filed an application for the adjudication of this case without making any effort to acquire each of the objects of confinement in this case through consultation.

③ Each object to be expropriated was excluded from the object to be expropriated at the time of project approval of the instant case.