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

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a company that owns a barge and tugboat for collecting and transporting sea sand and a maritime cargo transport business, etc. in the 153 west-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the 153 west-gun, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and operates the aggregate extraction business and marine cargo transport business.

B. On May 19, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased Nos. 32 (the length, 67.28m, 14.00m, 5.00m in depth, 987m gross tonnage, hereinafter referred to as “the instant vessel”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the ship registry on May 21, 2008. However, on the deck of the instant vessel, the Plaintiff was attached with a "ri", which is a structure for drawing the pumps and headings for dredging marine sand, and the “mast”, which is a pole for attaching an external radar antenna, has been installed, and the instant vessel has to secure a height of a vessel at least a certain height (traffic level, 'sea level', 'sea level', 'high speed', 'sea level', 'sea level', hereinafter referred to as 'sea level', 'high distance from the sea level'.

C. Meanwhile, on September 16, 2008, the Korea Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs changed its name to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on March 23, 2013) issued a public notice of the determination of a road zone (the determination and public notice of the instant road zone is referred to as the “determination and public notice of the instant road zone”) with respect to military funeral construction works among the four line lines of national road under Article 24 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Road Act”).

D. On September 17, 2009, the Plaintiff decided 20 meters of the height of the passage of the Gun guard, and thus the instant vessel became unable to pass through the Gun guard, and requested a consultation on compensation for damages to the instant vessel. On October 15, 2010, the Dosan Regional Land Management Office, which was determined by the construction company of the Gun guard, was to receive the vessel crew from the Plaintiff to make a decision on the passage of the bridge at the time of implementation design, and then reflected in the design of the instant vessel to the effect that it is difficult to compensate because the Plaintiff purchased the instant vessel even though it was aware in advance that the passage of the Gun guard would be determined at 20 meters of the passage of the Gun guard.

E. As above, when the Ysan Regional Land Management Office, which is a project implementer, and the vessel of this case, failed to reach an agreement on the purchase of the vessel of this case, the Plaintiff filed an application for the adjudication on compensation for losses with the Defendant pursuant to Article 92 (3) of the former Road Act. On October 7, 2011, the Defendant purchased the vessel of this case on May 19, 2008, even though it was aware that the Plaintiff would have decided 20 meters of the passage height of the military guard, and on the ground that the establishment of the military guard was scheduled at around 2013, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff sustained the loss at present (hereinafter referred to as the “instant adjudication”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without any dispute, Gap's 2, 3, Gap's 7, 8, Gap's 27, 28, Eul's 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The defendant's main defense

The Defendant, in substance, filed a lawsuit seeking the increase and decrease of compensation for the instant vessel pursuant to Article 85(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Projects Act”) against the Korea Regional Land Management Agency, which is the project implementer, pursuant to Article 85(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, and cannot file a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant adjudication against the Defendant. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. As such, the instant lawsuit

B. Determination

Article 92 (1) of the former Road Act provides that "If a person suffers a loss due to a disposition or restriction made by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs under this Act, the loss due to the disposition or restriction made by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall be compensated by the National Treasury, the loss due to the disposition or restriction made by other administrative agencies shall be compensated by the local government to which the administrative agency belongs, the loss due to the administrative disposition or restriction made by the administrative agency shall be compensated by the local government to which the administrative agency belongs, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and other administrative agencies shall consult with the person who has suffered the loss," and paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that "If an agreement under paragraph (2) is not reached or

Article 72 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Road Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24443, Mar. 23, 2013) provides that "The adjudication due to the disposition or restriction by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs or the Mayor/Do Governor shall be applied to the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and the adjudication due to the disposition or restriction by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall be applied to the Local Land Expropriation Committee."

However, the former Road Act does not provide for special provisions concerning the procedures for objection to the adjudication of compensation for losses by the competent Land Tribunal under Article 92 (3) of the former Road Act, which begins in a case where an agreement is not reached pursuant to Article 92 (2) of the former Road Act, and Article 85 of the Public Works Act concerning the adjudication of compensation for losses under Article 92 (2) and (3) of the former Road Act does not apply mutatis mutandis. Thus, with respect to the instant adjudication, it is unclear whether Article 85 of the Public Works Act, which is a provision on the procedures for objection to the adjudication of expropriation and objection

Therefore, pursuant to Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the plaintiff can raise an objection in the form of an appeal suit seeking the revocation of the adjudication of this case, and the defendant's main defense to this different purport is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order for the instant vessel to pass through the Gun guard, the passage height of the Gun guard shall be at least 28 meters. However, since the passage height of the Gun guard is determined at 20 meters by the time of the determination of the instant road zone, the instant vessel could not pass through the Gun guard according to its original condition without remodeling. The Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was determined at 20 meters by the public official in charge around August 25, 2009 that the passage of the vessel was determined at 20 meters by the Gun guard, which was the date of the determination of the instant road zone, and that the passage of the vessel would be determined at 20 meters prior to May 19, 2008, the date of the determination of the instant road zone, and that the passage would be determined at 20 meters prior to the date of the determination of the said zone, the Plaintiff did not obtain the instant vessel for the purpose of smooth purchase and sale of the vessel for the purpose of transporting the sea guard, without being aware of its original purpose.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 23 of the Constitution and Article 92(1) of the Road Act, the Defendant’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damages is unlawful, on the grounds that: (a) the cost of remodelling the instant vessel; and (b) the cost of business loss incurred by the Plaintiff during the period of remodeling the instant vessel; and (c) the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damages is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

(A) the progress of the military training construction and the process of determining traffic altitude;

(1) On January 14, 2007, the Donsan Regional Land Management Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Surn-key") issued a notice of tender regarding construction works for military funerals by the so-called internship method (hereinafter referred to as the "Surn-ke method after selecting the final business eligible for the basic design based on the bidding participant's basic design in the method of a package deal tender for design and construction). On June 5, 2007, the bidding participant is comprised of the three-company consortium (hereinafter referred to as the "three-company") and the Samsung C&T consortium (hereinafter referred to as the "T&T") and the Samsung C&T consortium (hereinafter referred to as the "T&T"), i.e., the three consortiums submitted a bid notice, such as the basic design drawing and price bidding, etc.

(2) Meanwhile, in the course of preparing the basic design drawing for the military funeral bridge, the aforementioned bidders submitted relevant data, such as the current status of the vessel owned by the Plaintiff (the status of the vessel owned and leased), specifications (the gross tonnage: the width of the vessel, the height of the mast, the dredging pumps), and the period of occupation and use of public waters (the period of permission) from the Plaintiff for the purpose of reflecting it in the passage of the military funeral bridge from the Plaintiff. According to the above data, a vessel passing through the military funeral bridge among the vessels possessed by the Plaintiff as of March 23, 2007 was 781 tons, 62.04m in gross tonnage, 18m in width, 3.3m in depth, 28m in height, and 28m in height for each list and mast (the Plaintiff acquired it on February 2, 2007). The Plaintiff did not own the instant vessel at the time.

(3) On April 2007, in the course of the preparation of the above basic design drawing, the exchange company asked the Plaintiff about whether it is possible to resolve the mast and Ri by means of the adjustment of height or other methods, since the design of the passage height of the military bridge 24 meters might hinder the operation of the new Twit. Accordingly, on April 13, 2007, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that "it is possible to replace the facilities and equipment and replace the vessels, and if this problem is resolved, it is possible to adjust the traffic altitude 24 meters." After that, on April 30, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed to design the passage height of the military bridge 25 meters between the exchange company and the Twit company, the Plaintiff agreed to design the passage height of the military bridge 30 meters, and the exchange company agreed to adjust the basic design at a height not exceeding 25 meters for each mast and Rith of the new Twit.

(4) After that, on July 18, 2007, the Hysan Regional Land Management Office selected Samsung C&T consortium as the person qualified for the final design for the construction work of the Gun T&T construction work, and the Samsung C&T consortium was working design from July 18, 2007 to July 28, 2008.

(5) On May 22, 2008, Samsung C&T consortium entered into a working design agreement with the Korea Land and Transport Management Agency for the construction of Samsung C&T on May 22, 2008, with a view to changing the passage altitude from 25.5m to 20m, and the Korea Land and Transport Management Agency for the construction of the YTK determined the passage altitude at 20m, reflecting the local conditions and the consultation with the related agencies on May 26, 2008. The Samsung C&T consortium completed the final working design with the above content on July 28, 2008. After that, the Korea Land and Transport Management Agency entered into a final construction contract for the construction works of the YTT with the Samsung C&T consortium on September 9, 2008. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20194, May 26, 2008>

B) The consultation process, etc. with the Plaintiff and the relevant agencies regarding the change of traffic altitude.

The Ysansan Regional Land Management Office, a related agency until the height of the passage of 20 meters between the Gun-si, the Gun-si, the Gun-U.S. Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Gun-U.S. Port Authority"), the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries changed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on February 29, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "competent Ministry and the Ministry before and after the change of their names," exchanged opinions among interested parties, including the plaintiff, on several occasions, and the detailed details

(1) On February 26, 2007, the head of the Korea Regional Maritime Affairs and Port Administration consulted with the head of the Gun/Gu and the head of the Gun/Gu in relation to the construction of the Gun guard road. On March 16, 2007, the head of the Gun/Gu held a public hearing on the agenda of the "consultations on the height of bridges and the distance between the intersections to secure the passage of vessels" against the plaintiff and other interested parties, including shipping companies, such as the plaintiff and other shipping companies. At the time of the public hearing, the plaintiff demanded that the passage of the Gun guard road as at the time of the above public hearing be set at 28 meters, but the Ysan Regional Maritime Affairs and Port Administration cannot accept the road because it is impossible to install a connecting road that meets the lower structure standard.

(2) On September 11, 2007, the head of the Korea Coast Guard requested the head of the Korea Coast Guard to make compensation for the Plaintiff’s new interest 3, the damaged vessel at the rate of 18 meters or less, and on November 2, 2007, the Gunsan Construction and Management of the Korea Coast Guard at the rate of 2007, and on November 2, 2007, the Gunsan Construction and Management of the Korea Coast Guard at the rate of 18 meters or less of a bridge height to facilitate the prevention and maintenance of safety accidents and to make compensation for the Plaintiff’s new interest 3, and on January 9, 2008, the head of the Korea Coast Guard at the rate of 28.5m or 20m higher for each interest of the Plaintiff’s new interest 3, the head of the Korea Coast Guard at the rate of 200m as a result of the inspection and confirmation, and submitted additional opinions to the head of the Korea Coast Guard at the rate of 20m.

(3) On January 30, 2008, the head of the Korea Regional Maritime Affairs and Management Office again sought an opinion from the head of the Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over whether the passage of the Gun guard could be adjusted from 25.5m to 20m. On January 31, 2008, the head of the Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the passage of the Gun guard. On January 31, 2008, the head of the Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the passage of the Gun guard group requested the Plaintiff to present his opinion as to whether the passage of the Gun guard group would hinder the operation of the ship in possession.

(4) As to this, the Plaintiff agreed on February 14, 2008 to design the passage height of Triju and Gun 25 meters. It is so harsh that the passage height was determined at 25.5 meters without any consultation with other construction companies. If the passage height is determined at 20 meters, the 808/807 Shin Ho-ho, which is owned by the Plaintiff, is 18.8 meters, the issue arises with safe navigation of vessels. It is thought that the Plaintiff’s 20th vessel using Triju to the effect that the 20th vessel traffic height is 18.8 meters from the 20th vessel owned by the Plaintiff (in the 20th vessel, raising the 5th vessel) should be expanded by continuous sand gathering, and thus, it would be necessary to review the 2nd vessel’s 4th vessel’s 4th vessel’s 4th vessel’s 5th vessel’s crithic and 5th vessel’s crithic and 2ndic.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 5, Gap's evidence 7 through 16, Gap's evidence 18, Gap's evidence 20, Eul's evidence 4 (each number is available) and the result of each inquiry into the head of the military, regional port and port office of this court, the head of the Korea Coast Guard, the head of the Dasan Regional Construction and Management Office, and the head of the Dasan Regional Construction and Management Office, the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.

2) Determination;

5) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the vessel of this case was no longer than 10 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3m m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m4 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m4 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m4 m4 m3 m2 m4 m3 m3 m2 m3 m3 m4 m4 m4 m3 m4 m2 m2.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-soo

Judges Cha Sung-sung