1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) project approval and public notice - Road project approval and public notice - Road project (B) - C project operator announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 4, 2012 - The head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration:

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation (hereinafter “adjudication of expropriation”) dated November 20, 2014 - The land in this case owned by the Plaintiff - The amount of compensation: 4,541,960 won - The date of commencement of expropriation: December 22, 2014 - The appraisal corporation: the appraisal corporation: the appraisal corporation, the appraisal corporation, the public appraisal corporation, and the Korea Land Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”) on the basis of recognition, has no dispute over the ground of recognition; the Gap’s evidence 1, 3, and 6; Eul’s evidence 5 (including each number); and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The project operator did not publicly notify the project approval of the instant land and did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the project approval was publicly notified. As such, the instant project approval notice is subject to the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”).

(2) Although the instant land was already expropriated and used according to other public works around 2002, it is invalid in violation of Article 19(2) of the Land Compensation Act, it is against Article 19(2) of the Land Compensation Act.

3) The project executor of the instant case did not notify the Plaintiff of the plan for compensation, consultation, etc. of the instant land, and did not go through the announcement procedure in lieu of the notification, and the Plaintiff was aware of whether the instant land is subject to expropriation. B. As stated in the relevant laws and subordinate statutes. (c) The illegality of the decision on project approval as to the first assertion on project approval should be disputed at the project approval phase, and the illegality of the decision on project approval itself should be resolved at the expropriation ruling phase where the period of litigation has already lapsed, unless there are special circumstances that make it difficult to deem the project approval disposition as invalid as a matter of course.