1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Paragraph (1) shall apply to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that states the grounds for this part of the disposition.

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) there is a justifiable reason to occupy the instant land until the Defendant is compensated for losses incurred by the removal of the instant land.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

(1) The instant housing was located prior to April 12, 1997, which was the date of the announcement of the approval for modification of the previous project implementation plan.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 5 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), the Defendant succeeding to the rights and obligations of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, which is the previous project implementer, should compensate the Plaintiff for the removal of the instant housing.

(2) Even if not, the Defendant received the instant land free of charge from the Korea Water Resources Corporation on December 31, 2010 and newly carried out the instant project, which is separate from the previous project.

Therefore, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant housing, should compensate the Plaintiff for the removal.

B. (1) Determination is made by the Public Property Act (hereinafter “Public Property and Commodity Management Act”).

Article 83(1) of the same Act provides that “The head of a local government may, where he occupies a public property or installs a facility on a public property without any justifiable reason, order the restoration of the public property or the removal of the facility, or take necessary measures therefor.” In this case, the burden of proving that there are justifiable grounds for occupying the public property or installing the facility on a public property must be proved by the party asserting it (2A evidence 5-1 and No. 5-1, No. 8, respectively, and the purport of the whole