1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project name: B project for creating factory sites - C public notice of Ulsan Metropolitan City on December 31, 2014

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Commission’s ruling on expropriation on October 19, 2017 - Subject to expropriation: 808 square meters of D forest in Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant land”): The starting date of expropriation: December 12, 2017 - Compensation for losses: 277,546,100 square meters (83,168,800 won for the land used as former land among the instant land; 186,58,600 square meters for the land used as forest land; 7,78,700 square meters for 561 square meters of land used as forest land; 186,58,60 won for the land used as forest land; 7,788,700 square meters for the 71 square meters of land used as road”); the purport of the entire pleadings; 1-2-3; 1-2-2-2; and 5-3-2-3, each of the statements and arguments.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by cultivating crops other than farming roads among the instant land and using dry field. As such, the Plaintiff’s actual use of 561 square meters in the instant land, which was evaluated as forests and fields in the adjudication of expropriation (hereinafter “instant land area”), was a previous state, the adjudication of expropriation that evaluated the instant land as forests and fields was unlawful.

B. In light of the following circumstances, in addition to the evidence examined earlier, it is reasonable to view that the current state of use at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of the part of the land in the instant dispute was forest land, and the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication on expropriation is justifiable, in light of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the images of the evidence No. 6-1 through 3, the evidence No. 1, and the entire purport of the statement No. 3, and the entire arguments

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

① According to the result of the survey on the instant land conducted around November 1, 2016 (Evidence No. 3), only one hundred and seventy-six square meters, among the instant land, are deemed to have been used as a whole, as follows.

② At around 2011, the airline margin (No. 6-1, 200) of the instant land, which was taken in around 2011, submitted by the Plaintiff, and the airline margin of the instant land, which was taken in around 2014, are as follows.