2. The court's explanation on this part of the claim for compensation of losses is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the list in the upper part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance to the upper part of the upper part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation on this part is acceptable in accordance with Article

No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, Dec. 30, 1969, transferred from No. 5990 to Jyang-gun E on December 30, 196, due to the split-off of No. 1407. On December 30, 1969, the receipt clerk changed the post category of the Suyang-gun E river No. 1407. On July 26, 1968, the clerk was the river site of Jyang-gun, Suyang-gun, Jyang-gun, the clerk was the river site of July 30, 1969, and cancelled as the clerk was the river site of July 26, 1968. As such, the paper of this subparagraph was closed. The clerk completed the registration of Jin-gun, the scope of compensation for losses on December 30, 1969.

A. According to Article 6(1) of the River Compensation Act, where a claimant for compensation directly files an administrative suit against Mayors/Do Governors because the procedures for claiming compensation are not followed, such as notification or announcement of the procedures for claiming compensation under the River Compensation Act, the assessment of compensation shall be based on the price as of the date of notification or announcement of the procedures for claiming compensation; however, where the claimant for compensation directly files an administrative suit against Mayors/Do Governors, the determination of the amount of compensation based on the price as at the time of the appraisal for such compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du16636, Nov. 10, 201); and, in principle, “the land category and land use status as at the time of incorporation” shall be based on the price as at

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du8512, Aug. 30, 2012). (B)

Judgment

1. According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 5, at the time of November 16, 1968, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation publicly notified that the entire land of this case is included in the L subordinate river area.