1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of confinement;

A. A. A zone B development project, one project approval, etc. (1) project approval, etc.: A public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on June 28, 2007; D public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 31, 2008; D public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 5, 2012; F2 publicly notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 24, 2012: Defendant 3) the project operator, who is the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) and the project operator: 1,685 square meters of G and 3,090 square meters of H (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

A. Incorporation into the project implementation district of the instant project

B. The Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of expropriation on October 24, 2013) The IF that the Plaintiff had conducted on each land of the instant case (hereinafter “instant business”).

(ii) Recognition of 27,850,000 Won for business compensation (compensation for suspension of work) for: 17 December 2013.

The Central Land Tribunal shall increase the amount of business compensation for the instant business as of July 17, 2014 to KRW 28,250,000 [based on recognition] written evidence A, evidence Nos. 10, 11, and evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including the number of each branch number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff could not seek land for the transfer of the instant business in the neighboring areas of each of the instant land due to the high price of the surrounding land and the authorization and permission for the transfer of the instant business. The facilities necessary for the instant business need to be installed for a long period. However, the Plaintiff’s plant cultivated while running the instant business cannot be left alone for a long time due to its nature. Thus, the instant business was inevitably discontinued.

Therefore, the defendant should pay compensation for the business closure of this case, not compensation for suspension of work, and since the amount of compensation for the business closure of this case is KRW 76,57,600, the defendant is obligated to pay 76,557,600 to the plaintiff and damages for delay.

3. It is as stated in the relevant laws and regulations attached thereto.

4. In full view of the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 46(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor.