1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance is not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance, and even if the plaintiff's assertion is re-examineed on the basis of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance and the court of first instance, the adjudication of expropriation in this case rendered by the local Land Tribunal of Jeollabuk-do cannot be deemed unlawful merely on the ground that the defendant Jeonju did not make a separate decision on the plaintiff's assertion related to the notification of the appraisal business operator's right to recommend when making a decision of objection in this case, the plaintiff's primary claim against the local Land Tribunal of Jeollabuk-do and the Central Land Tribunal of this case shall be dismissed, and the court's appraisal shall be appropriately calculated by reflecting the characteristics of the land of this case and the various factors of the price formation, and based on the court's appraisal, the court of first instance accepting part of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant Jeonjuju City's conjunctive claim and the

Therefore, the reasoning for this court's reasoning is as follows: (a) the court's reasoning for this case is as follows: (b) 7 pages 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance; (c) 9 pages 9; and (d) 4 pages 9 as “the first instance court”; and (c) 9 pages 9 as “the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance”; and (d) 4 pages as “the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance”; and (c) 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited as it is.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's primary claim against the Central Land Expropriation Committee and the Jeollabuk-do Local Land Expropriation Committee is dismissed as it is without merit. The conjunctive claim against the defendant Jeonju is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit.