1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion argues that, on the following grounds, the Plaintiff’s ruling of expropriation on November 26, 2012 on the land owned by the Plaintiff and the deposit of Defendant Jong-gun based thereon are null and void, the Defendants should pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim.

① On November 26, 2012, the Gangwon-do Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling on expropriation of land, such as 407 square meters, and obstacles owned by the Plaintiff, the land tribunal assessed the compensation for losses based on KRW 270,000 per square meter, based on the comparative standard, with an absolute master land as a comparative standard.

However, since other land adjacent to the above land was traded in the amount of KRW 10 million per square day around that time, the selection of the above comparative standard was erroneous.

(2) When a project operator fails to pay or deposit the compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal by the commencement date of expropriation, the adjudication becomes null and void; however, Defendant Jeong-gun did not deposit it by the commencement date of expropriation.

③ The liquidity transaction protocol, deposit certificate, and deposit certificate are all forged by the Defendant U.S. military using as evidence of deposit.

This is because, in the form of liquidity transaction protocol trading, the "private North Korea" is stated as a bank that does not exist, not a bank, but a bank that does not exist, due to the fact that the deposit certificate and deposit certificate are not a bank that exists within a court, and that the bank is not a bank that deals with legitimate deposit affairs.

④ A deposit placed in a court is also forged.

2. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to determine the error in the selection of a comparative standard site is insufficient to recognize that the ruling of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Gangwon-do is null and void as a matter of course. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Even if the above ruling of expropriation is null and void as a matter of course, the Defendants immediately compensate the Plaintiff for the same amount as stated in the