1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Implementation plan for disaster recovery project - Project name: The captain-Gun B (third) - Project implementer: Defendant - Public notice given to the captain-Gun of Busan Metropolitan City ( March 18, 2015);

B. Adjudication on expropriation by the local land tribunal of Busan Metropolitan City on April 18, 2016 - Date of expropriation: June 10, 2016 - Subject to expropriation: 121 square meters (E land (hereinafter “E land before subdivision”) owned by the Plaintiff, and E land after subdivision is “E land”.

- Compensation for losses from September 17, 2015 (hereinafter “instant land”): 12,100,000 won (the current status of the instant land is assessed as “river”;

C. Determination by the Central Land Tribunal on December 22, 2016 - Compensation for losses: KRW 12,233,100 (the current status of the instant land as “river”; the ground for recognition”); the fact that there is no dispute; Gap’s entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 15, 16; and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① As at October 30, 2015, when the appraisal of the instant land was conducted for the first time, it cannot be confirmed the current state of the instant land before the implementation of the project due to the river improvement project by the Defendant’s disaster restoration project (hereinafter “the instant construction project”). As such, in light of the proviso to Article 39-3(1) and the proviso to Article 32(1) of the “Land Compensation Evaluation Guidelines (amended by June 29, 2010; hereinafter “instant guidelines”) established by the Korea Certified Appraisers Association, the appraisal should be conducted in consideration of the current state of the use of adjacent land similar to the “responding”, which is the land category of the instant land pursuant to the proviso to Article 39-3(1) and the proviso to Article 32(1). ② The substantial part of the instant land prior to the implementation of the instant construction project was “farmland,” and even if the part adjacent to the area excluded from the urban area constitutes farmland, it shall be evaluated within the reasonable level of value of the instant land.