1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Approval and public notice of a project - Name of a housing site development project (B housing site development zone - Public notice: Defendant: C public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on June 28, 2007, D, etc. announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 31, 2008 - Project operator:

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on May 23, 2013 - subject to expropriation: ① 1,778 square meters before E, ② 43 square meters before F: 874,808,400 won (i) the above land: (ii) the above land’s 854,151,200 won, ② the land’s 20,657,200 won: the date of commencement of expropriation: July 16, 2013 [the purport of the whole pleadings is as follows: (a) the facts that there is no dispute over the ground of expropriation; (b) Gap’s 1,2,3 evidence; (c) Eul’s 1,2,3 evidence; and (d) the evidence Nos. 1,2, and 2 (including the

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment made an error in the appraisal which is the basis of the appraisal decision, such as the selection of comparative standards and the comparison of individual factors, etc., and sought an increase in compensation for losses. However, in a lawsuit claiming an increase in compensation for losses under Article 85 (2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the amount of compensation is more than the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication of expropriation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu255, Nov. 28, 1997). Since there is no evidence to prove that the amount of compensation exceeds the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication of expropriation, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.