1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff runs a construction waste collection and transportation business with the trade name of B. On March 1, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained a temporary consultation for other purposes (use period: from March 31, 2006 to March 31, 2012) on the condition that the Defendant used the land of this case as a site for temporary construction waste storage with respect to the land of 3,446 square meters, D previous 225 square meters, and E previous 863 square meters (hereinafter “each land of this case”), which is farmland, as farmland, as farmland, on the condition that the land is restored to farmland after using it as a site for temporary construction waste storage. On March 13, 2009, the period for temporary use of each land of this case was extended from the Defendant for other purposes on March 31, 2012.

B. On February 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for development activities stipulated in Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act to use land of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and D as a construction waste collection and transportation storage place. The Defendant rejected the application for permission for the said development activities on April 17, 2012.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap16753), following an administrative appeal, seeking revocation of the foregoing non-permission disposition of development activities (Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap16753), but the judgment of dismissal was rendered on March 7, 2014, which was dismissed (Seoul High Court 2014Nu46364), dismissed appeal (Supreme Court 2014Du42155), dismissed appeal (Supreme Court 2014Du42155).

C. Following the conclusion of the lawsuit above, on March 9, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to reinstate the Plaintiff to the effect that “the land of this case is restored to farmland by April 10, 2015.”

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(ii) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 10 through 13, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s alleged business operated by the Plaintiff is a construction waste collection and transportation business and storage business, it is deemed that the period of temporary use of six years is insufficient. Each of the instant lands is incorporated into “F Expressway” public-private partnership projects and “G” projects, and is expropriated and expropriated.