The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business Recognition and Public Notice - Electric Source Development Business (B) - Public Notice of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on May 30, 2016 - Part to be incorporated into a business: A public space between the airspace of 18m to 36m from the airspace of 521m2 and that of 56m2m20m2, which is passed by the power transmission line, owned by the Plaintiff;

(b) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on use on July 11, 2019 - The date of commencement of use: The period from the date of use commencement to the date of existence of the facility: The period from the date of use commencement to the date of existence of the facility - Compensation for losses: 27,873,500 won (hereinafter “appraisal”) [based on recognition]; the facts that there is no dispute over the outcome of appraisal, which forms the basis of the adjudication; the entries in the evidence A1 and 2; and

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the gist of the claim is assessed unfairly because there are many errors in the selection of the comparative standard sheet and the comparison of individual factors, and in the correction of other factors, it did not reflect the pertinent transaction price. The instant project, as the instant project, seriously undermines the value of the land as a result of the passage of high voltage power transmission lines on the land owned by the Plaintiff.

Since there is a person, the compensation should be increased.

B. In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff’s assertion itself was wrong in the adjudication and appraisal, and it cannot be found that there are any unlawful grounds for illegality in detail, and there are other grounds for illegality in the method of evaluating the adjudication and appraisal.

There is no evidence to prove that there is a particular error in the assessment.

The court provided the plaintiff with an opportunity to prove the amount of fair compensation through the court appraisal procedure and provided guidance on the relevant procedures several times.

However, in a situation where there is no difficulty in appraisal only because it is merely an appraisal of one parcel of land, a certified public appraiser designated as a court appraiser twice or more has rejected the appraisal, and the plaintiff himself/herself is not a telephone contact with a certified public appraiser.