1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be the part resulting from the participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 10, 2012, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport before the amendment of the Government Organization Act on March 23, 2013; hereinafter “the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs”) made a disposition designating an area of 11,85,00 square meters in Gangseo-gu, Busan as a waterfront (hereinafter “instant designated disposition”) pursuant to Article 4 of the former Special Act on the Utilization of the Waterfront (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Waterfront Act”) on December 10, 2012, the Defendant (hereinafter “the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport”) designated the developer of the waterfront development project as the Defendant’s Intervenor, Busan Metropolitan City, and Busan Urban Corporation, and announced it to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 14, 2012.

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Central Land Expropriation Committee, as he failed to reach an agreement on the acquisition of the shares of 136/2718 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff located in the waterfront B, 2,124 square meters, C, 2,844 square meters, D 2,718 square meters, and 136/2718 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above land individually referred to as “the instant

C. On November 20, 2014, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered an adjudication to expropriate the instant land on January 13, 2015 (hereinafter “instant adjudication”) with the commencement date of expropriation as of January 13, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 1, 2, 5, and Eul evidence No. 4 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Central Land Expropriation Committee, as a matter of course, raises a defense to the effect that the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the adjudication of this case among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful, since there is no interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the designation of this case, as well as seeking confirmation of invalidity of the designation of this case, the adjudication of this case is naturally null and void. As the plaintiff voluntarily expresses, the plaintiff's claim of this case is made.