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

(a) The name of the project that is the public announcement of the project recognition and the definition of the project: The public announcement of the definitions of B construction works (the first part of Young-gun; hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction works”): The C project operator who is public announcement of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on January 13, 2017: the Defendant

B. The land subject to expropriation and obstacles to the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on June 14, 2018: the compensation for the adjudication on expropriation of the land in question (hereinafter referred to as “instant obstacles”) that interfere with the surface landscaping, etc. of the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “instant obstacles”) - KRW 109,468,80: - Water in the instant case: 623,656,200: the date of commencement of expropriation of the instant obstacles: August 8, 2018.

When the Plaintiff refused voluntary removal of the obstacles of this case, the Defendant instructed the Plaintiff on October 22, 2019 that the instant obstacles should be carried out by proxy without the removal by November 12, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The instant obstacles were entirely removed by agreement between the Plaintiff and F, a corporation, the contractor of the instant construction, around September 2020, during the instant lawsuit.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Since the defendant's assertion of this case was removed, there is no interest in the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case.

B. In the event that a building is removed while a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition is pending, the construction of the building and the removal of the building would have no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu11293, Nov. 21, 1995, etc.). However, while the lawsuit of this case is pending, the fact that the obstacles of this case were removed is identical to that of the above. Thus, the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the disposition of this case has no legal interest.

3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.