Gangnam-gu Seoul

2. White00

Ansan-si members of Ansan-si

3. White ○

Sung-nam City Subdivision-gu

Plaintiffs (Law Firm B&S, Attorneys White-O, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Manam-si Correction-gu

Representative President ○○○

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Shin & Lee, Attorney Jeong-young et al.)

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(a) Approval and public notice of the project;

- Road projects (pasp - Sinsp - Sinsp sp sp - sp 2)

- No. 2009 - 204 announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 28, 2009

- Project operator: Defendant

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee on November 1, 2009;

- Persons to be admitted: OO-dong 000,000 prior to 00,000 meters owned by the plaintiffs, Ansan-si, O-dong 00,00 meters prior to their present status

10, 000 + Current road 000m (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case")

- Expropriation compensation: 69,202,350 won ( = 23,067, 450 won) in aggregate of the compensation for the instant land

13)

- Commencement date of expropriation: January 12, 2010

- An appraisal corporation: (State) an appraisal corporation, (State) an appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as a "appraisal")

D. The appraisal result of the appraisal shall be referred to as the "appraisal of adjudication".

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, 6, 7, and 8 (including each number)

record, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to legitimate compensation

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Therefore, even if the land of this case is not a private road under the subparagraphs of Article 26(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (hereinafter “Public Interest Business Act”), the adjudication of expropriation is erroneous in calculating the amount of compensation under the premise that it is a private road. Thus, the amount of compensation for the land of this case should be increased at the price assessed before it is not a private road.

B. Key statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

(c) Facts of recognition;

1) On June 19, 1969, 00 O-dong 0,000 square meters (hereinafter “00 - 000 - 000 - 000 m2”) of the plaintiffs’ father.

2) The Plaintiffs received on May 23, 2006 00 - 00 - Each of the above 1/3 shares - complete the registration of ownership transfer on May 29, 2006.

3) ○○○ has leased the above 000 - Land from the Plaintiffs and operated the historical world until the expropriation of the instant case.

4) On July 28, 2008, the above 000 - The land was divided into 000 - 000 - 00 00 - 00 - 00 m2 prior to the 0,000 - 00 m2,000 - 00 m2.

5) The above 000 - 00 land was expropriated due to the project of this case. At the time of adjudication of expropriation, the land of this case, which is part of the land, was assessed as a private road, and the remaining land was previously assessed.

[Grounds for recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Article 26 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act provides that a road constructed by a landowner at the time of the construction of the road for the convenience of his own land or a road, etc., on which it is impossible for the landowner to restrict the passage of other persons by his own will, and the site of the road shall not exceed 1/3 of the appraised amount of the neighboring land, which is the site of the road. If the land is actually being provided for the passage of many and unspecified persons, not more than 1/3 of the neighboring land, it shall not be assessed within the extent of 1/3 of the appraised amount of all the surrounding land. In light of all the circumstances, such as the road construction process, purpose, surrounding environment, the size of the lots of adjoining land, ownership, status of use, etc., the land owner shall be exempted from the application of the above provision if it is deemed that there is no objective reason to grant compensation at a lower price than that of the neighboring land for the convenience of his own land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Nu165.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the statements and images of Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence of Nos. 9 through 17 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

① The present state of the instant land is a passage along which the street flabs in order to ensure the passage of vehicles. ② The instant land is used as a passage for the above 000 - the same parcel of land prior to the division, on the surface of the water being operated by ○○○ on the surface of the water, such as a vehicle having access to the water on the surface in operation of ○○○○ on the surface of the land. ③ The instant land is engaged in the business on the water surface as from February 3, 2003, namely, the west Resources Environment. ④ The said passage is not only on the top of the water, such as the resources located in the neighboring area, the labs, the labs, the lab resources, and the lab resources.

5) The instant land has been used as a passage of neighboring land from around 1985 to around June 1, 2010. ⑤ The Defendant notified the neighboring manager, who uses the instant land as a passage along the instant land, as a content certification that the passage on the instant land would be obstructed. 7 The Central Land Expropriation Committee assessed the amount of compensation as well as 0,000 square meters among 0,000 square meters connected to the instant land and assessed the amount of compensation as a private road, and did not raise any objection against this.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the present situation of the instant land is the passage along the road, and the owner at the time of the opening of the road directly constructed for the convenience of his own land, or it is determined that the land owner falls under the “private road” in fact, i.e., the road where the passage of another person cannot be restricted by his/her will. Therefore, the principal of the Plaintiffs’ state, based on the premise that the instant land is not a private road,

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judge Lee Jae-young

Judges Kim Min-young