1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

A. The Defendant is a project executor of a railroad construction project [B] (hereinafter “instant project”).

On December 22, 2014, the instant project was announced as C Public Notice of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

B. On April 12, 2018, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on April 12, 2018, the Defendant is only the Pyeongtaek-si Dol (hereinafter “Ba”) owned by the Defendant on April 19, 2016 for the instant project.

(E) The land to be expropriated in 585 cubic meters prior to E (hereinafter “instant land”).

1) The land was expropriated (hereinafter referred to as “land expropriated in this case”).

(2) On July 2017, the Plaintiff filed with the Central Land Expropriation Committee a claim for compensation for damages due to the decline in value with respect to the aforementioned FF large 560 cubic meters owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “F land”), the said G G 100 cubic meters (hereinafter “G land”), and the said H 420 cubic meters (hereinafter “H land”); and the said three parcels of land collectively referred to as “each of the instant parcels of land”).

3) On April 12, 2018, the Central Land Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for adjudication on the ground that “as a result of the request for appraisal by two appraisal business operators, G land and H land, which is a group of land, shall not be deemed to have suffered loss due to the decline in the price of the remaining land” (the Central Land Tribunal did not state its reasons for dismissing the claim for compensation for loss due to the decline in the value

(C) On October 25, 2018, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered an objection against the said adjudication on expropriation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1) filed an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee around May 11, 2018.

2) On October 25, 2018, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rejected Plaintiff’s assertion of compensation for the decrease in the price of remaining land on the same ground as the above adjudication of expropriation (hereinafter “instant adjudication”).

D. The current status of the land expropriated and each land of this case 1) The farm household housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) was constructed on the ground of the instant F land.