2. The plaintiff against the defendant Republic of Korea.

(a) Formulation and public announcement of river works implementation plans - The names of river projects (B river environment maintenance projects): Public notification of the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office on June 5, 2012;

(b) Project implementer: Daejeon Regional Land Management Office; and

C. On November 21, 2013, the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Committee”) rendered a ruling of expropriation (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”) on November 21, 2013 - The Plaintiff filed an application for compensation for expenses incurred in clearing the instant river site possessed by the Plaintiff, but was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff did not lawfully occupy the instant river site from the time of clearing to the time of compensation.

The Defendant Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on April 17, 2014 - The same reasons as the above acceptance ruling.

【Legal basis for recognition】 The description of evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant Committee does not have the standing to be the Defendant Committee in a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation, and thus, the instant lawsuit against the Defendant Committee is unlawful. As such, the instant lawsuit against the Defendant Committee is a defense

B. According to Article 85 (2) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”), where an administrative litigation is a lawsuit seeking the increase of compensation, a project operator shall be the defendant if the person who files the lawsuit is a landowner or a person concerned. In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff appears to have sought the cancellation of the adjudication on expropriation of this case against the defendant committee for the purpose of substantial increase of compensation. Thus, the plaintiff should be the defendant who is the project operator, and the defendant committee, the ruling authority, as the defendant, does not seek the cancellation of the adjudication on expropriation, and the contents of the adjudication on expropriation are not claimed