1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) The approval and public notice of the project - The project name: the project site that is opened for entry into a general industrial complex B (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): C publicly notified on November 11, 2013 - the project site that is publicly notified on November 11, 2013 - the project site that is project site: D

(b) The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on January 21, 2014 - The date of expropriation:

C. On January 21, 2014, the date of adjudication of expropriation, G: (a) the Plaintiff’s aquaculture constitutes a business subject to business loss compensation upon the Plaintiff’s request; (b) the business loss compensation amount was calculated as KRW 106,30,000 under the condition that the period of business suspension is 24 months; and (c) if the Plaintiff’s aquaculture business does not constitute a business subject to business loss compensation, the relevant compensation amount was calculated as KRW 12,30,000 pursuant to Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and 6 (including branch numbers), the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser G of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff operated a aquaculture from July 11, 2007 after filing a fishery report with the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff sought to apply for the extension of the term of validity of the above fishery right on or around June 2012 prior to the expiration of the term of validity of the above fishery right, but on the ground that the instant land, etc. was included in the instant business from the Defendant.