1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B large 590.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant land was incorporated into a site subject to urban planning facilities (road) on December 28, 1992 according to the determination of urban planning facilities (the Incheon Metropolitan City publicly notified C; hereinafter “instant determination of urban planning facilities”).

B. However, an urban planning facility project on the installation of the pertinent urban planning facility has not been implemented until ten years from the date of the public notice of the determination of the instant urban planning facility project, and the Plaintiff, on April 1, 2014, requested the Defendant to purchase the instant land pursuant to Article 47(1) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 13681, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to consult three times from July 25, 2014 to March 10, 2015 with the purport that “the compensation amount for the said land shall be KRW 272,017,350, and shall be paid in cash after the written contract is concluded.” However, the Plaintiff refused the Defendant’s request for a consultation to increase the compensation.

C. On October 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant to file an application for adjudication of compensation for losses pursuant to Article 47(4) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 30(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”). However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on October 20, 2015 on the ground that the instant land was not subject to an application for adjudication because there was no public announcement of project approval.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, and 13, Gap evidence No. 9-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 47 of the Plaintiff’s allegation that urban planning facility project is not implemented within 10 years from the date of announcement of the determination of urban planning facilities.