1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

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 - Compensation amount: KRW 4,541,960 - The date of commencement of expropriation: December 22, 2014 - An appraisal corporation: A certified public appraisal corporation; a certified public appraisal corporation; a corporation with certified public appraisal corporations (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”) on a large scale of appraisal corporations (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”) [based on recognition] did not have any dispute; Gap’s evidence 1, 3, and 6 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s evidence 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

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 governed by 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 instant project implementer 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. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was unaware of whether the instant land is subject to expropriation. 4) The adjudication on expropriation of the instant land was made through a forged appraisal report, a written application for adjudication, and a written agreement stating false details, including a written adjudication on expropriation attached by the attached Form, which was subsequently fraudulently accepted.

5 Of the instant land, the land of this case is 49m2 and 24m24m2.