2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Of each land of this case, each of the lands listed in the table Nos. 1, 7, 7-1, 10, and 11 in the separate sheet No. 1, 7, 7-1, 10

(B) Although the land was used as a factory site at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, this is due to an illegal alteration of the form and quality, and as to each of the above land, compensation for losses should be assessed by presenting the current state of use at the time of illegal alteration of the form and quality as factory site. Since part of the pertinent land was used as a pre-existing or factory site at the time of alteration of the form and quality, unlike the appraisal that was presented as a whole as a forest, it should be presented and assessed as pre-existing, factory site, forest land, etc. according to the utilization status of the pertinent part. 2) Other than the appraisal of the adjudication,

B. 1) The Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”).

Article 70 (2) provides that "in principle, the amount of compensation for land shall be calculated by taking into account the real situation at the time of the price and the objective situation of the general use, but the temporary use, etc. shall not be considered." Article 24 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act delegated by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to determine the detailed amount of compensation and the method of appraisal pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, provides that "Article 70 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act, which shall be delegated by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure