1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

A. On June 8, 2012, the project implementer of Pyeongtaek-si obtained authorization for the installation of public sewage treatment plants for the public sewerage installation project (B; hereinafter “instant project”); and the Gyeonggi-do Governor publicly announced it as the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice C on the same date.

B. On December 18, 2013, the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation of KRW 162 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-si owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) on the date of expropriation as of February 1, 2014, and rendered a ruling of expropriation of compensation amounting to KRW 30,213,000. As the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of acceptance of compensation amounting to KRW 30,375,00 (hereinafter “instant ruling”) on August 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On October 7, 2008, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do announced a public announcement of the project of this case as the Gyeonggi-do public announcement D on October 7, 2008, and on June 8, 2012, the Gyeonggi-do public announcement C notified the modification of the content that the project implementation period is extended.

However, since the head of Pyeongtaek-si, who is a project operator, did not file an application for adjudication within one year from the public announcement date of the project approval, the project approval becomes void, and the project approval is not already invalidated due to the above modification authorization.

In addition, the head of Pyeongtaek-si did not go through legitimate procedures such as notifying the plaintiff of the compensation plan or implementing compensation consultation.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted the illegality of the above procedure for the invalidation of the project approval and the compensation procedure, but determined only whether to increase the compensation in the instant adjudication.

Therefore, there is an error in the omission of judgment in the judgment of this case.

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff asserted is invalid and compensated for project approval.