1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Each “this court” of the first instance court’s 4 pages 13, 20, 5, 20, 5, 6, 8, 15, 8, 10, 9, 16, 10, 16, 12, 18, 13, 8, 21, 14, 15, 21, 15, 7, and 8 shall be deemed to be the “court of the first instance.”

B. Each of the “this decision” of the first instance court Nos. 11, 4, and 15, and 19 shall be deemed to be “the first instance court decision” respectively.

(c) Parts 6, 2, 3, and 4 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

In full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 8, ① the fact that the application for adjudication submitted by the Busan Regional Land Management Agency of National Land on May 30, 201 to the Central Land Management Agency of the Republic of Korea on the part of May 30, 201 is not stated (Evidence No. 4), ② the fact that the business compensation is not stated (Evidence No. 5) even in the written opinion submitted by the Selection B to the Central Land Management Agency around June 2011, ③ the fact that the written ruling of August 12, 2011 does not include B’s business compensation (Evidence No. 6), ④ the fact that the business compensation of the Selection B is not included in the written ruling (Evidence No. 8).

In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the selected party B had gone through the adjudication procedure under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor with respect to business loss compensation only by the descriptions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the evidence No. 15-1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the part of the claim for business loss compensation among the lawsuit

3.