1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

A. On September 27, 2012, the head of the Dong-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City publicly announced the residents’ public inspection of the Dong-gu Seoul metropolitan area (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) as to the designation of the rearrangement zone as the rearrangement zone.

B. On May 31, 2016, the Defendant was established to implement a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) in the instant rearrangement zone, and obtained authorization to implement the instant rearrangement project from the head of the Dong-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant project implementation authorization”) from the head of the Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant project implementation authorization”), and was publicly notified on the same day.

(D) Gwangju Metropolitan City public announcement of Dong-gu).

From April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff was engaged in the wholesale and retail sales business, such as light oil and oil, in the name of “F” in the Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City within the instant improvement zone.

On September 20, 2018, the Gwangju Metropolitan City Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”) on September 20, 2018 by which the amount of compensation for losses to the plaintiff is KRW 15,850,000, according to the defendant’s application for adjudication of expropriation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s business cannot continue due to the instant improvement project, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff compensation for losses incurred by the closure of business.

Even if no compensation for losses is recognized due to the closure of business, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the compensation for losses due to the suspension of business, and the decision of acceptance of this case has an error of excessively lowering the compensation for losses.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the reasonable amount of compensation and the amount of compensation determined by the expropriation ruling to the plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff's business is not a business subject to compensation, and it is also a business subject to compensation.