1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name - Commercial name : 40 tea site development project (hereinafter “instant project”) - Public notice: July 11, 2008 - Business operator No. 2008-308 of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced on July 11, 2008

B. Decision of the Central Land Tribunal on June 22, 2012 - Expropriation of a person subject to expropriation: 125,370,000 won (the appraiser shall be referred to as “adjudications,” and the appraisal result shall be referred to as “adjudications”) for the purpose of expropriation on the ground of the land located in the “Libera Club” golf course owned and operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant golf course”): The wastewater treatment plant and the treatment facilities of sewage on the ground of 120-7, YU-ri, YU-ri (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): August 16, 2012 - the appraisal corporation: the appraisal corporation, one appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisals,” and “appraisals”): 125,370,00 won (the appraisal appraiser shall be referred to as “the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Public Works Act”).

(2) If it is determined pursuant to Article 75(1) that the transfer of the obstacles in this case may be possible, the compensation shall be deemed to have been incurred prior to the transfer of the obstacles (hereinafter “transfer

[Reasons for Recognition] [Ground for Recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an essential facility to maintain and operate the instant golf course, and there exists a special circumstance in which the remaining facilities of the instant golf course (hereinafter “the instant remaining land”) could not maintain the same function as the previous one due to the expropriation. Thus, in order to ensure that the remaining land of this case can maintain the same function as the previous one even after expropriation, compensation for the instant obstacles is different from compensation for ordinary obstacles under Article 75(1) of the Public Works Act, and Article 73(1) of the Public Works Act.