1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - B Improvement Project (B) - Public notice: Defendant C on May 24, 2016, and D on January 12, 2017, respectively;

B. The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”) on December 26, 2017 - Land of 17 square meters in E-Si, Dongcheon-si (F before partition; hereinafter “instant land”) and obstacles (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): Compensation for losses: KRW 2,159,00 for the instant land, KRW 2,445,00 for the instant obstacles, and KRW 2,45,00 for the date of expropriation: the date of expropriation: the certified public appraisal corporation: the Gyeonggi-dong Vice Governor for the Certified Public Appraisal Corporation, the branch office of the Korea Certified Public Appraisal Corporation [Recognition], the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, 3, Eul’s each statement (including each number), Eul’s evidence 1, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Each compensation for the land and obstacles in the instant case, which was determined by the Plaintiff’s ruling on expropriation of the instant land and obstacles, cannot be considerably affected by the market price.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the difference between the reasonable compensation for losses and the compensation for losses as well as the damages for delay as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. In a lawsuit claiming the increase of compensation for losses under Article 85(2) of the Land Compensation Act, the burden of proving that the amount of compensation exceeds the amount of compensation for losses as stipulated in the adjudication of expropriation is borne by the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2255, Nov. 28, 1997). Since there is no evidence to deem that the amount of compensation for the land and obstacles owned by the plaintiff should be increased as stated in the purport of the claim rather than the amount of compensation stipulated in the adjudication of expropriation of this case, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.