1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff leased the land B and 20 pieces (hereinafter “instant land”) from each landowner, and operated “C” in cultivating Rose of Sharon trees, etc. on the instant land while distributing Rose of Sharon trees.

B. On February 2007, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, including the instant land, designated a single unit of land, including D, E, F, G, and H, as a national industrial complex (I industrial complex) under Article 6 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, and announced it (J of February 7, 2007 and K of January 13, 2009).

C. On March 15, 2009, the Defendant, who was designated as the implementer of the above I Industrial Complex Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”), applied for adjudication to the Central Land Expropriation Committee as it had consulted with the Plaintiff in order to transfer trees on the instant land, but did not reach an agreement.

On November 19, 2009, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling on November 19, 2009 on the transfer of trees, such as Rose of Sharon trees, and on December 18, 2009, on compensation for losses (compensation for transfer) at KRW 527,22,30, and on the commencement date of expropriation at KRW 527,22,30, and the commencement date of expropriation.

After the above ruling, the plaintiff did not transfer the above trees, and the defendant deposited the full amount of compensation for losses at the Jeonju District Court on December 18, 2009.

E. On January 15, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming for the increase of compensation, etc. under the Suwon District Court 2010Guhap581, which was dissatisfied with the above judgment. However, the above court did not provide any data to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the appraisal results of the appraiser conducted by the above court on May 25, 2011, and the quantity of the trees stated in the appraisal report is a large difference between the quantity identified in the course of vicarious administrative execution conducted on July 2010, and the status of the trees at the point close to the above appraisal date (price) due to the Plaintiff’s interference with the appraisal business of the above appraiser.