2. The defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation.

(a) Project name: Project name of a permanent multi-purpose dam construction project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”);

(2) A project implementer: Public notice of the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (the President of the Korea Water Resources Corporation) on June 29, 2009: Articles 2009-408 and 2009-410 publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on June 29, 2009, Article 2009-91 and Article 209-578, etc. of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Environment on December 30, 2009: Articles subject to expropriation on December 30, 2009, such as the Notice No. 2009-91 and No. 2009-578, etc. of the Busan Regional Land Management Office on December 30, 2009: Geum-ri-ri 1040 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”):

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Commission for adjudication on compensation for losses for the instant land and obstacles expropriated due to the instant project (hereinafter “instant expropriation”). On October 24, 2013, the Central Land Expropriation Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for adjudication based on the determination that the Defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation’s construction of facilities replacing existing facilities may not make any separate compensation for losses.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 11 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the Defendant’s Central Land Expropriation Committee

A. We examine ex officio the plaintiff's action against the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the legitimacy of the action.

Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The provisions of Article 70(1) provides, “Where some of the co-litigants’ claims are legally incompatible with those of other co-litigants, or where claims against a part of the co-litigants are legally incompatible with those of other co-litigants, Articles 67 through 69 shall apply mutatis mutandis.”

Here, ‘legal compatibility' is compatible.