1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Authorization and Public Notice of Projects - Private Investment Projects (B Expressway, 2 Sections 5), - Public Notice D of March 21, 201, announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and on August 12, 2011

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

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on October 24, 2013 (hereinafter “instant adjudication on expropriation”): - On the ground level E in the Suwon Line E-gu, Suwon Line: 5,700,000 won (on the basis of low temperature warehouses (450,000 won) and 5,250,000 won) transfer expenses for expropriation

(d) Adjudication by the Central Land Tribunal on May 21, 2015 - Contents of adjudication: The fact that the Plaintiff’s rejection of an objection [based on recognition] does not dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of all pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff leased the land of Suwon-si E from around 2007, and was engaged in the double-wing business, which was closed by the Defendant’s instant acceptance decision according to the Defendant’s business, and thus, the Defendant shall make a business compensation to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) As to the claim for business closure compensation, the criteria to distinguish whether the business is deemed to be a discontinuance of business or a business suspension should depend on whether the business in question falls under the case where it is impossible or considerably difficult to move the business to another place within the location of the business in question or within the neighboring Si/Gun/Gu. The determination of the possibility of such transfer should be made by taking into account the existence of a cause for relocation under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the type and characteristics of the business in question, the size and characteristics of the business in question, the current status and characteristics of the adjoining area, the parties’ efforts to relocate the business in order to relocate the business, and the existence of a cause for de facto transfer such as objection to the relocation of neighboring residents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du14649, Sept. 15, 2005).