1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Details of the disposition

On August 7, 2015, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport approved the implementation plan for the implementation of the C Expressway Project (3-2 and 3) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”), which is a public-private partnership project, and determined and publicly announced the road zone.

(Public Notice D) On November 12, 2012, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and Selected B (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to 1/2 shares of each of the 660 square meters of land E-gu, Seoyang-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The head of the Seoul Regional Construction and Management in charge of the instant project management and land compensation filed an application for the adjudication of expropriation with the Central Land Expropriation Committee after consultation with the Plaintiffs on the acquisition of the portion of 10 square meters of land to be included in the current status map (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”; and the remaining part is referred to as “the remaining land of this case”).

E The area of 660 square meters for forest land was divided into 10 square meters for forest land incorporated into the instant case on November 30, 2016 and 650 square meters for forest land E, which is the remaining part of the instant land.

In the adjudication procedure for expropriation, the plaintiffs submitted to the Central Land Expropriation Committee the opinion that the remaining land in this case is expropriated and compensate for losses caused by the price reduction. On December 8, 2016, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the remaining land in this case should be expropriated and changed for its previous purpose on the ground that "the remaining land in this case is incorporated into ten square meters out of a total of 660 square meters, and its size is large and it is deemed possible to use the remaining land for the original purpose because it does not interfere with entry through an existing road," and rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that "the appraisal business operator does not recognize that there is a loss caused by the price reduction of the remaining land in this case as a result of the request for appraisal by the two appraisal business operators," and rejected the plaintiffs' claim on the compensation for the compensation for the decrease of the remaining land in this case, and the compensation for