1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for compensation of losses with respect to 385-4 1,159 square meters at Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

2...

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project name (A) project approval and public notice 1: Songpo-In Incheon Road Packing Corporation (National Map 98, hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”);

(2) Notice: Gyeonggi-do Notice No. 2004-308, Oct. 25, 2004; Notice No. 2008-88, Apr. 14, 2008; Notice No. 2011-5130, Oct. 21, 201; Notice No. 2012-5068, Aug. 1, 2012: Defendant.

B. On October 25, 2004, 112 square meters out of 385-5 m2, 385-4 m2, 385-4 m271 m2, which is owned by the Plaintiff, were incorporated into the instant project road zone, and the agreement on expropriation compensation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded on February 2, 2005 and June 7, 2005, and thereafter the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant’s name.

C. Of the 385-4, the remaining 1,159 square meters (hereinafter “the first remaining land of this case”), among the 385-4 square meters owned by the Plaintiff, 362 square meters, 97 square meters in the same 385-16 square meters, 385-18 square meters in the same 384 square meters, and 134 square meters in the same 385-18 square meters in the business zone of this case, were additionally incorporated into the road of this case on March 28, 2012. As to this, the agreement on expropriation compensation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded on March 28, 2012, and thereafter the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant’s name.

(2) Of each of the above lands, 385-4 square meters, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 385-4, 797 square meters, and 385-16 square meters, 352 square meters (hereinafter “the second remaining land”). D.

The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for the compensation of losses arising from the decline in the remaining land on the second remaining land and the 308-1 465 square meters in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, which became the remaining land due to the instant project. However, the Central Land Expropriation Committee dismissed the said claim on January 23, 2014 on the ground that there is no fall in the value of the remaining land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Acts and subordinate statutes;