1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Under Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), on March 6, 2014, the head of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government delegated by the Defendant, the head of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Seoul Metropolitan Government”) modified an urban planning facility (road) with the content of installing a road stating the following urban management plan (i.e., “change” in the report on change of urban planning facilities (hereinafter “instant road”), and publicly notified it as Geumcheon-gu E.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant change in the urban management planning”). The extension of the function of division (m) the extension of the function of division (m) the number width (m) 11-109 20, 900 - F G general roads 11-109-36 (20), 060 FH general roads 1,060, 1,060, among the changes in the F G general roads, the extension of the terminal part of the road and the extension of some sections (road 290m above).

B. On September 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) prepared an implementation plan for the construction of the I-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-S

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). A.

Location of the project site: J-K

(b) Type and title 1) of the project: The name of the urban planning facility project (road project) project: The construction works of the I-based underground lane;

(c) Total size of business) 1: Four-lanes in width, 452 meters in length (290m in underground lanes) 2: four-lanes in width and 142m in length;

(d) Name and address of the project implementer: Defendant 2) Seoul Jung-gu L;

C. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government land for factory in Geumcheon-gu (hereinafter “instant land”), which is included in the instant project zone, and the Defendant applied for the adjudication of expropriation to the Central Land Expropriation Committee by failing to reach an agreement, although the procedures for consultation on the compensation for losses were conducted with the Plaintiff to expropriate the said land.