1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On November 16, 2009, the project approval process and the name of the public announcement project: A project operator publicly notified by the Seoul Regional Land Management Office: the Defendant (competent authority: the Seoul Regional Land Management Office) owned part of the land owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, who was incorporated into the Plaintiff, owned the same 5,058 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and the said land was divided into E with 2,592 square meters in size, and was incorporated into the instant project area and remaining 2,466 square meters in size (hereinafter “instant remaining land”).

The plaintiff's claim for expropriation, etc. of the remaining land of this case and the plaintiff filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for adjudication seeking compensation for damages due to expropriation of the remaining land of this case or price decrease.

On January 11, 2018, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the use of the remaining land in this case for its original purpose cannot be deemed significantly difficult, and that the loss is not recognized due to price decrease.

In response to the above judgment, the Plaintiff filed an objection, but the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s objection on June 21, 2018.

According to the court appraisal of the result of the request for appraisal by this court (hereinafter “court appraisal”), the price of the remaining land of this case was determined to have not been reduced due to the execution of the project of this case since there was no change in the time before and after the transfer of the land of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, and the result of the appraisal commission to F appraiser's office G in this court, the summary of the plaintiff's assertion as to the purport of the whole argument is as to the reduction in the price of the remaining land of this case by selecting two appraisal business entities in the compensation consultation procedure with the plaintiff.