The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

The plaintiff's total costs of litigation.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Article 72 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) provides that where “after a public announcement of project approval is made, the land owner may either request the project operator to purchase the land, or request the competent Land Tribunal to expropriate the land.”

In light of the language, history, purport, etc. of the above provision, the right to claim the expropriation stipulated in the above provision is a right granted to the landowner as part of the compensation for losses, such as the right to claim the expropriation of remaining land under Article 74(1) of the Land Compensation Act, and its effect takes place upon the landowner’s request. Therefore, a lawsuit filed by the landowner against the adjudication of the Land Tribunal which rejected the landowner’s claim for the expropriation of land constitutes “litigation concerning an increase or decrease of compensation” as stipulated in Article 85(2) of the Land Compensation Act, and the Defendant

(2) On August 19, 2010, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Plaintiff asserted that the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, the project implementer of the instant urban planning project, used the instant land for at least three years after public announcement of the project approval, and filed a claim for expropriation of the instant land on the ground of Article 72 Subparag. 1 of the Land Compensation Act. ② The Defendant rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for expropriation on the ground that it does not meet the requirements under Article 72 Subparag. 1 of the Land Compensation Act. ③ The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the said dismissal ruling.

When examining these facts in light of the above legal principles, the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the project implementer, shall be the defendant.

Therefore, it is true.