1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Recognition and Public Notice of Project - Road Project Name - Public Notice: Road Project Name - Public Notice of the Busan Regional Land Management Office on July 4, 2012 - Project Operator C - Defendant (competent authority: the head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Office);

나. 중앙토지수용위원회의 2014. 12. 18.자 수용재결(이하 ‘수용재결’이라 한다) - 수용대상 : 소나무 묘� 1,344주(이하 ‘이 사건 소나무’라 한다) 외 지장물 19건 - 손실보상금 : 총 30,476,000원(이 사건 소나무 : 12,250,000원) - 수용개시일 : 2015. 2. 10. 다.

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection on April 23, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication”) - Contents of the ruling: The amount of compensation for losses shall be increased upon the Plaintiff’s filing an objection: Total amount of 38,473,500 won (20,160,000 won for cattle of this case): the fact that there exists no dispute, the fact that there is no ground for recognition, the entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion acceptance ruling and compensation for losses pursuant to the instant ruling were too underfinite due to the Plaintiff’s failure to properly reflect all factors, such as the type, birth, volume, characteristics, etc. of the instant pine trees.

The defendant shall pay the difference between the reasonable compensation and the compensation determined by the appraisal of an objection to the plaintiff.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In a lawsuit seeking increase in compensation, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the amount of reasonable compensation exceeds the amount of compensation stipulated in the adjudication of acceptance or objection.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2255, Nov. 28, 1997). According to the result of the commission of appraisal of appraisal of appraiser D of this Court, it is recognized that the transfer cost (acquisition price) of the instant pine trees was 20,160,000, and this is the same as the amount that the Plaintiff received as compensation for the instant pine trees from the ruling of objection.

As long as it seems that the transfer cost (acquisition price) of the instant pine trees exceeds it, it is difficult to believe that the entry of “A” No. 4 is difficult.