1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) A project approval and public announcement - A project approval and public announcement - A project approval: A project approval and public announcement - A public announcement of project approval: D public announcement of the Busan Regional Land Management Office on July 12, 2013, and E public notification of the Busan Regional Land Management Office on March 10, 2016;

(b) Project implementer: Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on July 21, 2016 - The Plaintiff filed a claim for expropriation of 1,229 square meters of forest land B in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “instant remaining land”). However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the area of the instant remaining land is large, the shape of the land is not an irregular type, and the body is adjacent to the instant remaining land, and it is possible to enter the instant land by reflecting it in the design, thereby making it difficult to use the instant project for the previous purpose.

The Central Land Tribunal made an objection on December 22, 2016 - The plaintiff raised an objection against the adjudication of expropriation but was dismissed on the same ground as the adjudication of expropriation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's main purport of the safety defense is that "the lawsuit of this case is sought for the revocation of the ruling that did not accept the remaining land of this case, which ultimately constitutes a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation. Therefore, the plaintiff must appoint the project implementer as the defendant and seek the revocation of the ruling against the defendant is unlawful."

B. A lawsuit filed by a landowner against an adjudication rendered by the Land Tribunal which does not accept a claim for expropriation of the remaining land generally constitutes “litigation concerning an increase or decrease of compensation” as stipulated in Article 85(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”).

As such, the project implementer shall be the defendant.

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da1548 Decided August 19, 2010