1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 1965, the Defendant determined and announced the E located in Yangyang-si as a river to which the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice D applies mutatis mutandis.

B. The land was divided into 1,960 square meters (23 square meters prior to B on September 19, 2001 and 1,937 square meters prior to C on September 19, 2001; hereinafter “the land prior to the division”. The land after the division is “each of the instant land” but the individual land is the lot number. The land was restored on February 12, 1958, but the registration of ownership was completed with respect to the said land on July 19, 196 by the Republic of Korea while the owner was unrepared.

C. On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea for cancellation of registration of initial ownership relating to each of the instant land, etc. as the District Court Decision 2012Da151898, and received a favorable judgment on September 28, 2012, and the appeal (Korean District Court Decision 2012Na51487) was dismissed, and the said judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff completed registration of initial ownership relating to each of the instant land on September 26, 2013.

On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed with the Central Land Expropriation Committee a claim against the Defendant to compensate for losses equivalent to the usage fees on the ground that each of the instant lands was incorporated into the river area of G, which is the land of the E, and was incorporated into the river area of G, which is the land of the E, in accordance with the establishment of the F River Maintenance Master Plan published by Gyeonggi-do on April 26, 2001. However, the Central Land Expropriation Committee confirmed that each of the instant lands of May 21, 2015 was classified into the river area of 1987 and the National Land Geographic Information Institute of Korea in 192, and there was no change in the form of the river area at present, and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for adjudication of compensation for damages on the ground that the fact that the Defendant performed river works on each of the instant lands of the instant case

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. State property of the land before the instant partition.