The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. The Defendant is the project implementer of the “D Construction Project” (hereinafter “instant project”), which is an urban planning facility project (road) project implemented by the C Institute in the period of harmony (hereinafter “instant project”).

The Defendant prepared an implementation plan for the instant project pursuant to Articles 30 and 88 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), and obtained authorization from the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, and publicly announced the implementation plan and topographic map as E on May 29, 2018 and August 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant public notification”).

The project implementation period specified in the notice of this case is 36 months from May 29, 2018 (the scheduled date for commencement: the scheduled date for commencement: the public notice date for the authorization of the implementation plan and the scheduled date for completion of the implementation plan: 36 months from

B. At the time of the instant public notice, the Plaintiff was the owner of F. 18 square meters F. 18 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) incorporated within the instant project zone in Sungsung-si.

(C) The land in this case was divided into the G land for the implementation of the project in this case.

On March 2019, the Defendant filed an application for expropriation with the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee pursuant to Article 28 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”). On January 20, 2020, the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee (the date of commencement of expropriation: March 5, 2020) accepted the instant land and rendered a ruling of expropriation with compensation amounting to KRW 13,446,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence No. 1, plaintiff's assertion and judgment of the whole argument

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) From January 9, 2017 to November 21, 2018, the Plaintiff’s domicile refers to “Sesung H building and I” (hereinafter “previous address”).

Since then, "JJ" (hereinafter referred to as "new address") is deemed to be a new address until now.

The Defendant, however, on December 4, 2018.