1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project name: A public notice of project approval and public notice of project approval (1) : A public notice of project approval and public notice of project development 2) on April 1, 2004; D public notice of Gyeongnam-do on September 8, 2005; and E public notice of Gyeong-do on November 29, 2007: Defendant;

B. Persons subject to expropriation by the Special Metropolitan City and Do Land Expropriation Committee on October 30, 2008 (1) of the Special Metropolitan City and Do Land Expropriation Committee on October 30, 2008): All of the facilities, including the money company operated by the Plaintiff on the ground, such as Changwon-si F (hereinafter “the instant two-way facilities”).

(2) Compensation for business compensation: 272,196,50 won (i.e., compensation for suspension of work for the instant facilities during the three-month period of KRW 129,86,500 for the instant facilities) 3), the starting date of expropriation: (iii) December 1, 2008; (iv) compensation for losses on March 12, 2009: 272,309,000 won (i.e., compensation for suspension of work for the instant facilities during the three-month period of KRW 129,86,500 for the instant facilities): Compensation for business closure of the instant facilities for suspension of work for the instant facilities during the three-month period of KRW 129,459,000 for the instant facilities: Dismissal of an objection:

D. 1) The Plaintiff’s claim: 2) the Changwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap1011 decided Oct. 28, 2010: Busan High Court Decision 2010Nu6267 decided Aug. 17, 201: Revocation of the first instance judgment and dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim 4) Supreme Court Decision 2011Du21256 Decided Dec. 13, 201: The fact that there is no dispute over the dismissal of appeal [based]; Party A’s statement in subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the process of litigation, etc. to determine whether to grant compensation for the closure of the instant facilities, the compensation for suspension of work for the instant facilities for a period of 24 months was omitted in the adjudication procedure. As the Plaintiff actually suspended his/her business for at least two years, not the compensation for suspension of business for at least 21 months as indicated in the protocol of compensation (=).