1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and publication - Business name: Public housing project: - A project operator: Defendant - A public housing project approval: Designation of D E zone and publication of topographic drawings, etc., published by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 8, 2011;

B. Adjudication of expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on January 5, 2017 - The land subject to expropriation: F2,446 square meters prior to the date of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is owned by the Plaintiff (However, the actual use of the above land was assessed to be the area of 1,795 square meters, and 651 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”): The actual use of compensation for losses is the area of “electric” (1,795 square meters): 1,382,329,500 square meters (unit price: 770,100 square meters): 167,079,150 square meters (unit price: 256,650 square meters: 1,549,40 square meters: 408,650 square meters: 1,551 square meters: 28,2017; - With the comparison of the actual use of land with the land of Gangdong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Standards for Land Development and Management; -1, -1, -100000 square meters.

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on May 25, 2017 - The portion where the actual status of compensation for losses is “former” (1,795 square meters): 1,393,548,250 won (76,350 square meters: 776,350 square meters): 168,446,250 won (251 square meters: 258,750 square meters: 1,561,94,500 won (unit price: 258,750 square meters): The aggregate of 1,561,94,50 won - The Land Tribunal, the KBR - The comparison standard place - All the two appraisal corporations: the comparison standard place of the land in this case, and the area of use: the area of use, the development-restricted area, the natural green area, road traffic: the area of use: 76,350 square meters): The purport of the selection of bridge and the purport of the entire pleading 1, 2 through 61, and 30

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The issue of this case is that the Plaintiff’s compensation amount for an objection to the instant land is less than 651 square meters out of the instant land.