1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

Since November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff, from around 1988, operated the Deputy Director in the Daegu Dong-gu B and C Land and both above ground buildings owned by the Plaintiff. On November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was temporarily suspended from the business as the Plaintiff was expropriated in the instant land and building due to D business (business authorization date: December 10, 2015; hereinafter “instant business”).

Therefore, pursuant to Article 77 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the business loss incurred by the instant project.

The details of the attached statutes are as follows.

Judgment on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. In order for a person who closes or suspends his/her business due to public works projects to receive compensation for business losses from a project operator pursuant to Article 77(1) of the Land Compensation Act, he/she is entitled to remedy pursuant to Articles 83 (Objection), 84 (Adjudication on Objection), and 85 (Institution of Administrative Litigation) of the Land Compensation Act only when he/she objects to the adjudication after going through the adjudication procedures provided for in Articles 34 (Adjudication) and 50 (Adjudication Matters) of the Land Compensation Act, and it is not allowed to immediately claim compensation for losses against the project operator without going through such adjudication procedures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da43461, Oct. 13, 201; 2009Du10963, Sept. 29, 2011).

In light of the above legal principles, Gap evidence Nos. 18, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and the purport of the entire argument as a whole, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff had gone through the procedure of the adjudication of expropriation with respect to the compensation for the Daegu Dong-gu B and Eul land and both of the above ground buildings located in the project area, but there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff had gone through the procedure of the adjudication of expropriation with respect to the compensation

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case against the defendant without going through a ruling.