1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Housing site development project: Housing site development project (4 zones-1) - Public notice: Defendant on May 30, 2008, No. 2008-187, Nov. 29, 2010, No. 2010-862, Nov. 29, 2010, and No. 2011-923, Jan. 3, 2012;

(b) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on January 18, 2013 - Subject to expropriation: Business compensation for food waste disposal business conducted by the Plaintiff at 1100 in Pyeongtaek-si, Sejong-si (hereinafter “instant business”) and its business facilities - Compensation for losses: 730,649,630 won (including compensation for suspension of work 58,416,660 won related to the instant business): - The date of commencement of expropriation: A new appraisal corporation and Korea Appraisal Board (hereinafter “Korea Appraisal Board”) in the future;

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on June 19, 2014 - Details of the ruling: 742,051,800 won (including compensation for suspension of work 58,200,000 won for suspension of work related to the business of this case) - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation and an appraisal corporation for a stock company [applicable for recognition]: The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1, 2, and 3, Eul’s 1, and 2, and Eul’s 1 and 2 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the business transfer was made by making efforts to ask questions about the possibility of transfer to another neighboring Si/Gun, including Pyeongtaek-si where the above business place is located, but the transfer of the business was made legally and practically impossible due to residents' opposition due to environmental pollution, etc., which constitutes a discontinuance of business under Article 77 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter "Land Compensation Act"), Article 46 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter "Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act"), and therefore, the defendant constitutes a discontinuance of business under Article 46 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.