1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: E development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - Project operator: F stock company (hereinafter referred to as “F”): Public notice of the approval of the G E plan and topographic drawings published in Ulsan Metropolitan City on March 20, 2014, public notice of the approval of the H E plan published in Ulsan Metropolitan City on February 12, 2015, public notice of the approval of the change of the I E plan published in Ulsan Metropolitan City on September 21, 2017;

B. Pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Act No. 16568, Aug. 27, 2019), each of the Defendant’s respective rulings on expropriation (hereinafter “each of the instant rulings on expropriation”) on February 28, 2018, a project operator of an industrial complex development project may expropriate land, etc.; and when an industrial complex is designated and publicly announced pursuant to Article 7-4(1) of the same Act, a project approval and public announcement of a project approval under Articles 20(1) and 22 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”).

On January 3, 2018, the Defendant received an application from F, the developer of the instant project, and rendered a ruling of expropriation on the land and obstacles of the Plaintiff and the designated parties as follows:

- Subject to confinement: Each description of the number of 2562 square meters of J-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, in which the Plaintiff and the designated parties jointly own 1/4 shares (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and the obstacles owned by the Plaintiff on its ground - The date of expropriation: April 24, 2018 - Compensation for losses: 14,731,500 won for land: 17,509,100 won for obstacles: The 14,731,50 won for each land (based on recognition), the fact that there is no dispute over each of the 14,731,50 won for land, the evidence Nos. 1,2,10,111, the evidence Nos. 1,4, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the video, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Whether each expropriation ruling of this case is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that each of the instant adjudication on expropriation exists due to procedural substantive defects as follows, and thus is unlawful.