1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 8, 2015, Gyeongcheon-do filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for the adjudication of expropriation of 1/2 of the 2,163 square meters (hereinafter “land subject to expropriation”) of the Plaintiff’s land incorporated into the instant construction site, as the project implementer of the Gyeongcheon-do (hereinafter “instant construction”). The Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of expropriation that “Gyeongcheon-do accepts 1/2 of the land subject to expropriation from the Plaintiff and pays the Plaintiff KRW 105,121,800 of the compensation.”

B. On September 3, 2015, Gyeongbuk-do deposited the said compensation with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit.

C. On December 20, 2016, Gyeongbuk-do completed the instant construction.

On October 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant to purchase the remaining land due to the expropriation of the land subject to expropriation on the ground that the area of 372 square meters (hereinafter “the remaining land of this case”) that was adjacent to the land subject to expropriation was the remaining land due to the expropriation of the land subject to expropriation.

E. On October 25, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “The claim for purchase of the remaining land should be made by the date of completion of the instant construction project pursuant to Article 74(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), and thus, the Defendant cannot purchase the remaining land.”

(hereinafter “Notification of this case”). 【No dispute exists in the ground for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 9, 12, 13, and 14, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that although the defendant had a duty to purchase the remaining land of this case, the notification of this case which rejected it should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Article 74(1) of the Land Compensation Act provides that “The part of a group of land belonging to the same owner shall be purchased through consultation.”