1. The plaintiff's action against the Central Land Expropriation Committee shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City

1. Basic facts

A. On June 1, 2005, the Plaintiff started business and registered the place of use of construction machinery equipment, such as the air compresseders owned by the Plaintiff, as the above place of business, under the trade name of Ulsan-gu C where the location of Ulsan-gu C was D.

B. On April 17, 2014, the Defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City publicly announced the instant project implementation plan as the implementer of the E project (hereinafter “instant project”), and as the F of the Ulsan Metropolitan City’s Public Notice of Ulsan Metropolitan City.

In addition, the instant land owned by G is subject to the incorporation of the instant project, and on the instant land, an unauthorized building (hereinafter “instant building”) is constructed.

C. In the process of acquiring land, obstacles, etc. to be incorporated in the instant project, Defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City did not compensate for business losses on the ground that the location of the Plaintiff’s business registration and the actual place of business are different.

The Plaintiff, around August 2014, had the Plaintiff’s place of business in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu. However, in fact, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the instant land and the building on its ground to engage in construction machinery leasing business (hereinafter “instant business”) at that place and raised an objection against the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for losses incurred from the instant business.

However, on August 27, 2014, the defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City responded to the purport that the place of business the plaintiff claims against the plaintiff is not subject to business loss compensation.

E. On March 26, 2015, the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Defendant Committee”) rendered a ruling of expropriation of the land subject to the instant project incorporation on March 26, 2015 upon the application for the adjudication of expropriation by Defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City, but rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for losses incurred to the instant project.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.