1. The plaintiff's action against the Central Land Expropriation Committee shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's defendant.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - B housing site development project (C; hereinafter “instant project”) - The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’s notice on May 30, 2008 (D), the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’ notice on November 29, 2010 (E), and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’ notice (F) on January 3, 2012: The Defendant Corporation;

(b) Defendant Committee’s adjudication on expropriation on January 23, 2014 - Items that are each obstacles indicated in the details of compensation for obstacles owned by the Plaintiff - Date of expropriation: March 18, 2014 - Compensation: 19,783,320 won - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation as a substitute appraiser for an appraisal corporation, and an appraisal corporation as a stock company;

C. The Defendant Committee’s ruling on August 21, 2014 - The amount of compensation increased to 22,325,000 won by adding compensation to compensation for the water pipes with omitted compensation (outside, 180m) - The amount of compensation shall be increased to 22,325,00 won - The amount of compensation shall be increased by adding together with the new appraisal corporations, future appraisal corporations, Pacific appraisal corporations (hereinafter “appraisals”), and each appraisal result shall be referred to as “adjudications” / [based on recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1 through 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport

2. The Defendant Committee asserts that the ultimate purpose of the Defendant Committee’s determination on the defense prior to the merits of the instant case is to increase compensation, and that the issue of increase in compensation due to the implementation of the instant project ought to be contested against the project implementer, and that this part of the lawsuit filed against the Defendant Committee is unlawful.

According to Article 85 (2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), if a person who files a lawsuit is the landowner or person concerned in an administrative litigation over an increase or decrease in compensation, the project operator shall be the defendant. The plaintiff’s assertion is practically seeking an increase in compensation. Thus, the plaintiff is against the defendant construction project operator.