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

A. On September 10, 2007, the Korea Highway Corporation publicly announced a change (additional) of a road zone “C Corporation” as publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and subsequently selected as a project implementer for the said public works.

B. In promoting the above project, the Korea Highway Corporation acquired land listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “each land of this case”) from around 2007 to around 2009 as public land because it is necessary to build a sub-road in a sub-section in the expressway project zone, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant around that time.

C. On January 6, 201, the Do Governor decided that “E” including each of the instant land (hereinafter “E”), as a traffic facility construction through the determination of an urban planning plan (amended) and the notification of a topographic map to the Do Governor on March 6, 201, by means of the determination of an old urban management plan (amended) and the notification of a topographic map.

On the other hand, on May 23, 2011, the elderly group requested the Korea Highway Corporation to consult on the construction of overlapping sections connecting access roads to golf courses (G) on the instant secondary roads, since it applied for the formulation of an urban management plan to develop the F, which was implemented by the Plaintiff. On February 14, 2013, the Korea Expressway Corporation presented the opinion that it is reasonable for the elderly group to transfer the instant secondary roads to the elderly group to implement construction.

E. Accordingly, on June 24, 2013, the Gyeongbuk-do Governor announced the Plaintiff’s business site including each of the instant land as H, a public golf course of the sports facility. On July 5, 2013, 201, the Korea Expressway Corporation transferred the road and facilities and management rights to the instant secondary roads on the condition that ownership is maintained at present, but transferred the facilities and management rights to the aged Gun on the condition that ownership is maintained at present. On October 31, 2013, the old Gun announced the authorization of the implementation plan for each of the instant land as an urban planning facility project (I).

F. On the other hand, the Plaintiff on March 2013.