1. The plaintiff's action against the Central Land Expropriation Committee shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation shall be the plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project name: B (hereinafter “instant project”): Public notice given by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 30, 2008 - Project operator C- Defendant Gyeonggi-do Urban Corporation and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation;

B. Defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling of expropriation on April 19, 2013 and ruling of objection on September 26, 2013, each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached to the project area of Defendant Gyeonggi-do Corporation, and each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached to the project area of Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation under Article 77(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), with the purport of rejecting the claim for compensation for agricultural loss under Article 77(2) of the same Act, and the purport of the whole pleadings, with the purport of rejecting the Plaintiff’s objection (based on recognition).

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. The summary of the cause of the plaintiff's claim has cultivated crops on each land listed in the annexed Forms 1 and 2 from March 2000, and since each of the above lands has not been managed and used as grassland for more than 30 years, it should be excluded from grassland pursuant to Article 24-2 of the former Grassland Act (amended by Act No. 9366 of Jan. 30, 200, hereinafter the same), the management agency neglected to take measures. Thus, each of the above lands constitutes farmland to be incorporated in the implementation zone of public works and constitutes a person subject to agricultural loss compensation pursuant to Article 77 (2) of the Land Compensation Act.

Therefore, the ruling of objection by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on different premises should be revoked illegally, and the defendant Gyeonggi-do City Corporation and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation should pay the plaintiff the compensation for agricultural loss.

4. The Plaintiff’s determination on the principal safety defense by the Central Land Expropriation Committee is the Defendant.