A. A project approval: (a) on June 5, 2012, the project approval: (i) on the project approval of construction works on an expressway between Gui-Yancheon-Yancheon-si (hereinafter “instant project”): (ii) the project operator publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (No. 2012-2842) on June 5, 2012; (iii) the Defendant 3) on the Namyang-dong-dong 12-24 forest land and 18,623 square meters, and 12-25 forest land and 6,453 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

(A) include in the project implementation district of the project of this case

B. At the time of adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on January 22, 2015, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling on expropriation of each of the instant lands (hereinafter “the instant orchard”).

(ii) The date of expropriation of the instant orchard 2,923,861,60 won recognized as compensation for losses for each of the instant lands, considering that the instant orchard, which had originally been used as an orchard, had been used as an orchard through an unlawful alteration of form and quality: the entries in Gap’s 2,9, Eul’s 1, and 2 (including the number of each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, on March 17, 2015

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the act of reclaiming forest land as an orchard cannot be deemed as changing the form and quality of land, the instant orchard part was reclaimed from forest land as an orchard without obtaining permission or filing a report.

Even if this can not be seen as an illegal change of land form and quality.

(b) The act of reclaiming forest land as an orchard falls under changing the form and quality of land;

Even if the Plaintiff did not need to report or permit the act of reclaiming a forest as an orchard in accordance with the relevant statutes at the time of the Plaintiff’s clearing the part of the instant orchard as an orchard, the instant orchard part cannot be deemed as land whose form and quality was illegally changed.

C. As above, although the portion of the instant orchard cannot be seen as the land whose form and quality were illegally changed, the expropriation ruling erred by regarding it as the land whose form and quality were illegally changed, the compensation for losses for the instant orchard portion.