1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Approval and public notice of a project - Name of an urban planning facility project (B construction works): A public notice of the approval and public notice of a project - name of an urban planning facility project (B construction works): the defendant: C public notice of the Busan Metropolitan City Maritime Daegu on February 11, 2015, D public notice of April 15, 2015, E, April 22, 2015, E, and F of the same public notice of April 29, 2015;

(b) Decision on expropriation made on July 30, 2015 by the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal - Goods subject to expropriation - Goods with a size of 756 square meters and obstacles prior to the Busan Metropolitan City General Transportation Daegu G - Date of expropriation: September 22, 2015 - Compensation for losses 867, 794, 400 won;

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on October 22, 2015 - Compensation for losses: 880,175,300 won;

D. The court's entrustment of appraisal to appraiser H (hereinafter "court's appraisal") - Compensation for losses: 902,160,600 won - The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition - Gap's evidence 1 to 3, Eul's evidence 4, 5, and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the court's entrustment of appraisal to appraiser H, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant's assertion that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff did not withhold the objection while receiving compensation according to the decision of objection.

B. Determination 1) Even if a landowner expressed his/her intent of reservation at the time of receiving compensation for losses as prescribed in the adjudication of expropriation, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that he/she received compensation for losses increased in the adjudication of acceptance of compensation for losses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Du1003, Nov. 13, 2001; 97Nu6834, Mar. 23, 199) regarding the instant case, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 6 and 8, the Plaintiff received compensation amounting to KRW 867,794,40, Aug. 12, 2015; however, the Plaintiff stated the phrase “to reserve the objection and receive the compensation amount” in the contract of compensation for losses. However, the Plaintiff additionally stated the phrase “to receive the compensation amount” from January 13, 2015, etc.