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

On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on March 15, 2015, with respect to BY 710 square meters, C, 10 square meters prior to C, 18 square meters prior to D, E, 149 square meters prior to D, F, 77 square meters prior to G, and 18 square meters prior to G (hereinafter referred to as “instant land” in total; when referring to individual land, it shall be indicated as a parcel number) on March 15, 2015.

The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant to compensate for its loss on the ground that the instant land was incorporated into the river area at the time of H River Repair Work in the 1960s, which was subject to restrictions on the exercise of the right to use and benefit from the instant land, but did not reach an agreement, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the Central Land Expropriation Committee.

On March 24, 2016, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for adjudication on the ground that the extinctive prescription of the claim for compensation for losses has expired.

Although the Plaintiff filed an objection, the Central Land Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on March 23, 2017 on the ground that there was no evidence as to whether the instant land was incorporated into the river area due to H Repair Work, and that it cannot be deemed that any loss was incurred due to the incorporation into the river area since it was used as the river area prior to the incorporation into the river area and the river area.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the argument of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the gist of the plaintiff's argument that the land in this case is used as "pre-existing" before the project is implemented, such as H's repair work, which is a river applied mutatis mutandis in the 1960s. Since the land in this case is incorporated into a river area and the implementation of the project in this case causes limited loss to the owner's use and profit. Thus, the defendant is obliged to compensate for losses equivalent

On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the former owner of the instant land, and acquired its ownership.