1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project name: Public announcement of B national highways (third national highways) construction works (third national highways): on March 25, 2010, C public notification of the Busan Regional Land Management Office on March 25, 2010, and D3 project implementers public notification of the Busan Regional Land Management Office on September 12, 2012: Busan Regional Land Management Office;

(b) The subject matter of expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on July 18, 2013: The compensation for losses: 6,942,200 square meters (unit price of 67,400 square meters/m2) prior to the Nam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (division 349 square meters prior to the F) : the starting date of expropriation: the date of expropriation: the compensation for losses on September 23, 2014 (unit price of 67,400 square meters/m2): 6,983,400 won (unit price of 67,800 won/m2) [the fact that there is no ground for recognition, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 1-2, and No. 1-2, and evidence No. 4-1, respectively, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant compensation for losses was made is unlawful after the lapse of 30 days from the date when the Plaintiff, a landowner, received a written judgment on the objection, as it did not properly reflect various factors in price formation, such as the price fluctuation rate and inflation rate.

B. 1) Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”).

Article 85(1) provides that "Any project operator, landowner or person concerned may institute an administrative litigation within 60 days from the date of receiving a written adjudication when he/she is dissatisfied with the adjudication of expropriation, and within 30 days from the date of receiving a written adjudication on an objection if he/she has raised an objection, respectively."

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement in Eul evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Central Land Expropriation Committee received a written objection from January 23, 2014 on February 3, 2014, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 12, 2014 is apparent in the record.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is brought.