1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the reasoning of the lower court regarding the instant case is as follows. The Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court is identical to the ground for the first instance judgment, except for the determination under paragraph (2). As such, this shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From 8th to 9th to 12th to 8th to 12th to 8th to 8th to 7th to 10th to 12th to 12th to 1

2) Although the Plaintiff appealed, on July 18, 2018, the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed (Seoul High Court 2017Nu591) (Seoul High Court 2017Nu591). The Plaintiff’s appeal against it was dismissed on November 19, 2018 (Supreme Court 2018Du53177). The said judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter the above judgment of the first instance court, the appellate court, and the final appeal judgment, all of which are “related administrative litigation judgment”.

(3) While filing an administrative suit, the Plaintiff filed an application with the head of the original Regional Construction and Management Administration for the suspension of execution, the Plaintiff was dismissed on December 6, 2016 (Seoul High Court 2016Aea5071), and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s appeal [Seoul High Court 2016lu7] and reappeal (Supreme Court 2017No746) were all dismissed.

4) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Central Land Expropriation Committee and the Defendant Republic of Korea, including the adjudication of land expropriation, the adjudication of nullity, and the request for increase of compensation, with respect to the instant land expropriation real estate, and the part on which the application for invalidation of the adjudication of land expropriation was dismissed (Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu775, Feb. 11, 2019 (Seoul High Court 2017Nu575), which was dismissed on February 11, 2019 (Seoul High Court 2017Nohap51851). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Seoul District Court 2017Guhap51, the Seoul District Court 2017Guhap51, and filed a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the determination of the road zone (an alteration) and the determination of the road zone for four parcels, including the instant temple site, which was scheduled to be incorporated into the body at the time of the instant public announcement, was invalidated on the ground that the period of project implementation (from February 207 to December 31, 2015) expires.