1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Authorization and Public Notice of Projects - Private Investment Projects (B Expressway, 2 Sections 5), - Public Notice D of March 21, 201, announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and on August 12, 2011

(b) Project implementer: Seoul Regional Construction and Management Administration;

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on October 24, 2013 (hereinafter “instant adjudication on expropriation”): - On the ground level E in the Suwon Line E-gu, Suwon Line: 5,700,000 won (on the basis of low temperature warehouses (450,000 won) and 5,250,000 won) transfer expenses for expropriation

(d) Adjudication by the Central Land Tribunal on May 21, 2015 - Contents of adjudication: The plaintiff's rejection of an objection (based on recognition), Gap 2, Eul 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff's business loss compensation is not subject to the adjudication of expropriation, the plaintiff's claim for the business loss compensation of this case is unlawful since it did not follow the adjudication procedure.

B. In order for a person who closes or suspends his/her business due to public works to receive compensation for business losses from a project operator, it is reasonable to view that it is not permitted to claim compensation for losses against the project operator immediately without following the procedure for the adjudication.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff claimed a business compensation for the closure or suspension of the two-wing business prior to the instant expropriation ruling, and that the instant expropriation ruling rendered a judgment thereon, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for business loss compensation of this case.