1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

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

(2) Public Notice: D three project operators publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of December 3, 2009, and publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of November 16, 201: Defendant

(b) Objects to be expropriated by the Central Land Tribunal on December 18, 2014 (hereinafter “instant adjudication on expropriation”): An E ground business right (hereinafter “instant adjudication on expropriation”): Compensation for losses on February 3, 2015: 10,000,000 won: One appraisal corporation, one appraisal corporation, and one appraisal corporation, one stock company, and one appraisal corporation;

C. Compensation for losses as a result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to appraiser F: 64,487,00 won in the case of a lawful place, and 10,000,000 won in the case of “unauthorized buildings, etc.” (based on recognition)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant building was registered as an animal and plant-related facility (hereinafter “instant building”) and used as a business operator at an extremely legitimate building without permission (hereinafter “the instant building”). However, the instant building does not constitute “unauthorized building, etc.” because Article 24 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects amended on January 2, 2012 (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) was made on August 12, 201, prior to the enforcement of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”). As such, Article 27 of the Addenda of the said Act (No. 427, Jan. 2, 2012) does not apply to the instant building as amended pursuant to Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act.

In addition, even if the plaintiff has stored goods in the building of this case and the plaintiff has left the building of this case out of the building of this case for the purpose of transporting the goods to the warehouse, other than the permission of the building itself or the alteration of the use thereof.