1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the Central Land Expropriation Committee is dismissed.

2. Defendant.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Industrial complex development project approval and public notice - Industrial complex development project (B; hereinafter “instant project”): Public notice given by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 12, 2008 - Project operator: Defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation;

B. The adjudication of expropriation on December 14, 2012 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Defendant Committee”) (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”) - Land subject to expropriation (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): D, 92 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”): The date of commencement of expropriation: February 6, 2013 - Compensation: 60,073, 200 won: the Korea Land Appraisal Board, the Korea Land Appraisal Board, the Korea Land Appraisal Board, and the Korea Land Appraisal Board.

C. The Defendant Committee’s ruling of objection (hereinafter “instant ruling”) on August 22, 2013 (hereinafter “instant ruling”) - Compensation for losses: 61,206,200 won - An appraisal corporation: A new appraisal corporation in the future of a corporation; 【Appraisal Corporation’s ground for recognition”; A’s evidence 1, B’s evidence 1 through 3, and evidence 6(including additional number)

2. The Defendant Committee asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion of illegality in each of the instant rulings by the Defendant Committee against the defense prior to the merits of the instant case is the ultimate purpose of compensation increase, and that the issue of increase of compensation arising from the implementation of the instant project ought to be contested against the project implementer. Therefore, the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendant Committee is unlawful.

In addition, according to the proviso of Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, in a case where the adjudication itself is based on an inherent illegality, an appeal suit may be filed against the ruling authority to revoke the adjudication itself, and the "illegal illegality inherent in the adjudication itself" refers to a case where the adjudication itself has an error in the subject, procedure, form, or content itself. It is not limited to a case where the plaintiff seeks an increase in the compensation, but procedural illegality up to each of the rulings in this case.