2. The plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The primary purport of the claim: Defendant Gangwon-do Regional Land Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Committee”) shall revoke the disposition of expropriation ruling on the land stated in the attached Form that it made against the Plaintiffs on April 4, 2006.

Preliminary Claim: Defendant Crossing-gun pays to Plaintiffs 1, 2, 4, and 50 million won each, and to Plaintiff 3 50 million won each, 5% per annum from May 4, 2006 to the date of final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

A. On February 4, 2001, the head of the Crossing-gun established the basic plan on the development of the Ilwon-gun as a tourist destination. On May 28, 2001, after the local finance investment and loan examination of Gangwon-do, on March 15, 2002, on March 15, 2002, the head of the Crossing-gun entered into an agreement on the development project of the Yucheon-gu Culture Tourism Site (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. On April 4, 2003, the Governor of Gangwon-do designated and publicly announced a lot of 149,000 square meters per Pungwon, including the land owned by the plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant project site”) in the Tourism Promotion Act, based on the application of the head of the Si/Gun.

C. After that, under the agreement of this case, it was impossible to purchase 10 land including the plaintiffs while purchasing land which is not owned by the plaintiffs in the project site of this case among the project site of this case. The Crossing-gun applied for a ruling of expropriation to the defendant committee. The defendant committee made a ruling of acceptance on April 4, 2006 with the following contents.

- Persons to be admitted: Land and things on the ground specified in the separate list owned by the plaintiffs

- Time of expropriation: May 4, 2006

-Compensation for losses

① Plaintiff 1: 139,32,740 won. ② Plaintiff 2: 62,460,000 won

③ Plaintiff 3: 78,298,570 won (4) 4: 240,832,050 won

⑤ Plaintiff 5: 251,344,980 won

D. On April 10, 2006 and the 111th of the same month, the Plaintiffs filed an objection against the adjudication of acceptance within 30 days after being served with the authentic copy of the written adjudication of acceptance, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 14, 2006, which was 60 days from that date.

E. Meanwhile, on September 27, 2006, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to dismiss the plaintiffs' objection.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6, 7, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, Gap evidence 17, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Details of the defense of this case

The defendant commission asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the adjudication of this case only after 60 days from the date of receiving the original written adjudication of acceptance.

B. Determination

According to Article 85 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”), when a landowner, etc. is dissatisfied with an adjudication under Article 34 of the Public Works Act, he/she may file an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee within 30 days from the date of being served with the original copy of the written adjudication. In cases where an objection is not filed, the said written adjudication may be filed within 60 days from the date of being served with the original copy of the written adjudication; in cases where an objection is filed, the said written adjudication may be filed within 30 days from the date of being served with the original copy of the written adjudication; and in cases where an objection is filed, the said adjudication shall be deemed lawful.

However, in the case of this case, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the adjudication of this case after the lapse of 60 days from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the written adjudication of acceptance. However, as seen earlier, an objection against the adjudication of acceptance was filed within a lawful period, and as long as the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the adjudication of acceptance was filed within 30 days from the date of serving the authentic copy of the written adjudication, the lawsuit of this case is deemed lawful, and therefore, the principal

3. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the adjudication of acceptance of this case was unlawful for the following reasons, and primarily seek revocation of the adjudication of acceptance of this case against the defendant committee.

(1) The instant project, which is the basis for the instant ruling on acceptance, is for only the astronomical believers, and thus goes against the principle of separation of religion and religion.

(2) While the plaintiffs suffered enormous damages due to the expropriation of the land of this case, it is possible to implement the project of this case even if they do not expropriate the land owned by the plaintiffs because the land of this case was owned in the vicinity of the Pungwon. Thus, the decision of this case violates the principle of proportionality or the principle of excessive prohibition.

(3) Since the public official in charge of Defendant Chova-gun promised not to expropriate Plaintiff 5’s land, the part against Plaintiff 5 in the instant adjudication on expropriation goes against the doctrine of gold speech.

(4) Defendant Crossing-gun and Seocheon-gu had provided the Plaintiffs with a notice on the acquisition of land through consultation on two occasions, and there was no substantial request for consultation. Thus, the instant adjudication on expropriation is an illegal disposition that did not go through the procedure for acquisition of land.

(5) The instant expropriation ruling is null and void as it did not go through various impacts assessment, such as environmental impact assessment.

B. Facts of recognition

(1) At around the 19th century, from the time of the 1090s when the Dagsung-gun was gathered in 1097 Seosung-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, France, the fourth Pungwon-gun, the Republic of Korea, around 1890, was established, and the fourth Pungwon-gun, the second new part of the Pungwon-gun, the second new part of the Pungwon-gun, the Pungwon-gun, the second new part of the Pungwon-gun, the second new part of the Pungwon-gun, the second new part of 1906 to the 1907 period from 1906 to 1907, which was the second new part of the Pungwon-gun, the Pungwon-gun, the first new part of the Pungwon-gun, the cultural value of which was recognized in accordance with the Cultural Heritage Protection Act of Gangwon-do, was designated as the type of cultural value.

(2) On March 15, 2002, the head of Si/Gun entered into the instant agreement with the Bocheon-gu. The main contents of the agreement are as follows.

- The Seongdong-gu Village, Historical Village, Recreation Village, Public Facilities, etc. shall be created annually by 205,00 square meters in a day-to-day 226,317 square meters per Pungwon.

- Crossing shall secure national expenses, Do expenses, and Gun expenses and invest in infrastructure, such as access roads, sexual village, and historical village development projects, and the original residential district shall invest in the creation of recreational villages, the purchase of land, and the compensation for obstacles.

- Management and operation after the construction of the facility shall be conducted by the original Gu, and beneficial facilities (facilities that can be sold, such as souvenirs and indigenous food) shall be entrusted and operated to non-governmental organizations related to the astronomical Gu.

(3) On April 17, 2003, the head of the Crossing-gun established a plan to create a cultural tourism zone and obtained approval from the Governor of Gangwon-do on April 18, 2003, publicly announced this on April 18, 2003, and notified interested parties including the plaintiffs. The main contents are as follows.

-name of tourist resorts: Nive cultural tourism area

- Location and development plan area: 11,467 square meters in the Seogwon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-do, 1100 square meters [1,467 square meters in public convenience facilities, accommodation facilities, 4,700 square meters (60 square meters in a building + 4,100 square meters in a buffer green belt + 4,100 square meters in a buffer green belt), 2,730 square meters in commercial facilities, 31,703 square meters in recreational cultural facilities, 6,40 square meters in a buffer green belt, 92,00 square meters in a preserved green belt];

- Project operator: Crossing Gun;

- Total cost: KRW 9.49 billion, among them, KRW 6.190 million, shall be appropriated at the expense of the State, Do, and Gun, and KRW 3.3 billion shall be invested at the principal school district.

- Project period: from 2002 to 2005

- Major facilities: Recreation villages, private halls, art galleries, arboretums, portraits, dividends, lecture squaress, astronomical movable property, revolving movable property, houses of the skin, underground poles, caters, logs, terminals, toilets, public convenience facilities, etc.

(4) According to the above plan, among the lands listed in the separate sheet, Plaintiff 1’s house in the land indicated in the separate sheet is to be formed, in the case of Plaintiff 2’s land, in the case of Plaintiff 3’s house in the case of the land, in the case of Plaintiff 3’s house in the case of the land, in the case of Plaintiff 4’s land, the river square is to be formed in the case of Plaintiff 5’s land, and in the case of Plaintiff 5’s land, in the case of the instant land

(5) On June 1, 2005, the head of the Crossing-gun applied for a change in the creation plan to extend the project period to 2007 and notified the interested parties including the plaintiffs with the approval of the Governor of Gangwon-do.

(6) After that, in accordance with the instant agreement, the principal school was unable to purchase ten land including the plaintiffs while purchasing non-owned land on the side of the main school site in the instant project site, and on August 12, 2004, the principal school sent a public notice to the effect that it would take the procedure of expropriation under the Public Works Act in cases where the purchase by consultation is delayed to the owners of the above 10 land including the plaintiffs.

(7) Around March 2005 to June 2005, Defendant Crossing sent an application for consultation on compensation to the Plaintiffs on two occasions, and a public official in charge applied for the adjudication of acceptance to the Defendant Committee as he attempted to meet the Plaintiffs or to purchase by telephone on two occasions, but did not reach an agreement. The Defendant Committee rendered the adjudication of acceptance of the instant content as seen earlier on April 4, 2006.

(8) In relation to the instant project, Defendant Crossing-gun already invested more than 3.5 billion won for the installation of infrastructure, such as access roads and bridges, roads in a complex, and sewage treatment facilities, and currently 45% of the total construction.

[Based on Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 6, 7, Eul evidence 13-1, 2, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 11, 12, Eul evidence 13-1 to 24, Eul evidence 14, 15, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 19-1 through 4, Eul evidence 19-1 to 5, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 13-24, Eul's evidence 14, 15, Eul's evidence 17, and Eul evidence 19-1 to 4, the testimony of the non-party witness at the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings, the testimony at the court of first instance, the testimony

C. Determination

(1) As to the violation of the principle of separation of religion and religion

According to Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the state religion and politics are not recognized and their religion and politics are separated. The above principle of separation of state and state has the effect of directly binding the state, local government or administrative agency.

Pursuant to such principle of separation of religion and religion, the State, etc. is obligated not to actively intervene in religion, such as providing financial support to a specific religion, and not to discriminate against a specific religion. However, even if certain facilities or events, etc. were derived from religious consciousness, events or symbol, if such facilities or events have already been recognized and accepted as a customary cultural element among the members of our community, they have the meaning of culture with constitutional protection value rather than the area of religion to which the principle of separation of religion and religion applies, and thus, the State, etc.’s support should be deemed constitutional in a specific way that implements the cultural state principle under the Constitution within a certain scope.

In addition, not only those having meaning in Korea but also those having global meaning in the principle of a cultural state are subject to protection. Although the history of the astronomical bridge in Korea is shorter than that of the Buddhist bridge, it is recognized that the facilities of the astronomical bridge or the astronomical bridge have cultural value at a global level, and as seen earlier, the Magwon is a sexual party constructed in 1907 in the ancient-dic form, and the 3rd old sexual party in Korea has the value to be protected as cultural heritage. Thus, it does not go against the principle of the separation of religion and religion that the State, etc. designates the Magwon Party as cultural property and provide protection or support within a certain scope.

Furthermore, the project of this case is promoted to promote the regional economy through utilization of the above facilities, etc., and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the approval of the project of this case goes against the principle of separation of religion and state under the Constitution. (On the other hand, the plaintiffs claim that the project of this case is a project for the management and operation of facilities under the plan of this case, and that the operation of profit facilities is entrusted to the private organizations related to the YY, because the project of this case is a project for the management and operation of facilities and the operation of profit facilities is entrusted to the private organizations related to the YY. However, even after the installation of facilities with the public budget, if the private organizations are entrusted with it, it can be considered that the budget reduction has the effect of saving budget, and even if it is entrusted to the private organizations, even if it is entrusted with the operation of the YY facilities, it can not be deemed that the local economy-related organizations are related to the revitalization of new local economy by increasing the sales of various adjacent accommodation and restaurants operated by the residents of this case.

In addition, even if the approval of the project of this case is unconstitutional in violation of the principle of separation of religion and state under the Constitution, such reason is objectively apparent and thus cannot be seen as a ground for invalidation of the disposition. Thus, insofar as the approval of the project of this case is not revoked, the adjudication of acceptance of this case, which is a subsequent disposition, cannot be seen as unlawful merely on the ground that

(2) As to the violation of the principle of proportionality

The plaintiffs asserted that the expropriation ruling of this case, which decided to expropriate the land owned by the plaintiffs even though it does not need to expropriate the land owned by the plaintiffs, is unlawful in violation of the principle of proportionality. However, as seen earlier, even if the land owned by the plaintiffs is scheduled to be the site for the main facilities of the project in this case, even if there are many other land owned by the river, it is difficult to deem that there is no need to expropriate the land owned by the plaintiffs. Since there is no evidence to support the fact that the expropriation ruling of this case had caused enormous damages to the plaintiffs exceeding the necessity of public interest due to the expropriation ruling of this case, it cannot be deemed that the acceptance ruling of this case goes against the principle of proportionality or the principle of excessive prohibition. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

(3) As to whether there is a violation of the principle of no-competence

Plaintiff 5’s public official in charge of Defendant Crossing-gun promised not to expropriate the land owned by the said Plaintiff, but accepted it. As such, among the instant adjudication on expropriation, the part concerning the land owned by the said Plaintiff was alleged to be unlawful in violation of the principle of Geum-dae. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was such a promise, and even if such promise was committed, the said assertion cannot be viewed as a public official’s statement solely on the basis of the promise made by the public official in charge. Thus, the said promise cannot be accepted.

(4) As to the implementation of the acquisition procedure by agreement

Although the plaintiffs asserted that the ruling of acceptance of this case was unlawful without undergoing the procedure for acquisition through consultation, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit, since the defendant Crossing made a negotiation before applying for the ruling of acceptance, but the plaintiffs did not comply with it, as seen earlier.

(5) On the part of the implementation of various impact assessment

According to Article 4(3) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, which provides for the scope of projects subject to various impact assessment, and Article 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2(3), attached Table 1, 1-C, 3-A-8(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the land area is more than 30,00 square meters in the case of the development of a tourism complex, traffic impact assessment and disaster impact assessment shall be limited to the case where the total land area is more than 50,00 square meters and less than 50,000 square meters or less than 50,000 square meters in the area of the facility plan, or where the land area of the instant project is less than 50,000 square meters and less than 3 million square meters in the site area, as seen earlier, it does not constitute a facility area excluding green areas, traffic impact assessment, and disaster assessment. Therefore, there is no reason for the allegation as above.

(6) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claim against the defendant committee on the premise that the ruling of acceptance of this case is illegal is without merit.

4. Determination on the conjunctive claim

Although the plaintiffs sought an increase or payment of compensation for the land of this case, as stated in the purport of the claim against the defendant Crossing-gun, even if based on the result of the appraisal by the court of first instance, there is no evidence to support that the reasonable appraised value of the land owned by the plaintiffs exceeds the appraised value of the land of this case. Therefore, the plaintiffs' preliminary claim against the defendant Crossing-gun is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims against the defendants are without merit, and they shall be dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims against the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of List of Real Estate]

Judges Jeong Ji-hee (Presiding Judge)