1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - B Expressway private investment project - C publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 4, 2012 - Project implementer: The Republic of Korea (the head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration)

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on October 23, 2014 (hereinafter “adjudication of expropriation”) - Subject to expropriation: Seocheon-si, Youngcheon-si, the Plaintiff’s father (hereinafter “instant land”) and one share of the above ground reduction trees - Compensation for losses: KRW 66,320,100, KRW 67,500, the date of expropriation: November 24, 2014.

The Central Land Tribunal's ruling on objection (hereinafter referred to as "adjudication on objection") dated February 26, 2015 - Contents of the ruling: To accept part of the claim for increase of compensation D, and increase the compensation of the instant land to KRW 66,594,150. 【Ground for Recognition】 Facts that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition, entry of Gap's evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Article 85(1) and (2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) provides that a project operator, landowner, or person concerned may file an administrative suit within a certain period of time when he/she is dissatisfied with the expropriation ruling or the adjudication of objection, with regard to the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case, ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case.

The owner of the instant land is the father D. The Plaintiff’s land did not mean “a person who has superficies, easements, right based on a lease on a deposit basis, mortgage, loan for use, or lease, or other rights than ownership on the land, or a person who has ownership or other rights on the land (Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Land Compensation Act).”

Accordingly, the parties to the adjudication of acceptance and objection were D, and they were not the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, who was not a party to the adjudication on acceptance or objection, has no standing to sue to seek revocation of the adjudication on the objection of this case.

3.