1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

A. On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission to engage in development activities with the Mayor of Yangju as to B 6,051 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Yangju-si.

7.3. Permission was obtained for development activities;

The plaintiff in the same month.

6. The two-ju City Mayor made a construction report on the construction of ten (10) stores and warehouses (hereinafter “the instant money death”), and the two-ju Mayor received the said report on the 27th of the same month, and the same year.

8. 20. The Plaintiff issued a construction report certificate to the Plaintiff.

B. A neighboring residents of the instant land (hereinafter “villages”) filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the above permission for development activities and the acceptance disposition of a building report, and the appellate court of the instant case determined that the said permission and the acceptance disposition were illegal dispositions that deviate from and abused discretion, and revoked all of them.

C. The Plaintiff paid or is scheduled to pay 120,812,665 won in total by reliance on the permission to engage in development activities in the Yangju market and the repair disposition of the building report (i.e., the amount equivalent to 11,895,875 won for construction costs incurred due to the construction of the instant money, and litigation costs incurred due to the residents’ interference with construction works, telecommunications charges, electricity charges, and other miscellaneous expenses incurred in removal of the instant money amounting to 97,041,890 won during the construction period, and the costs incurred in removal of the instant money amounting to 11,875,000 won). The Defendant is liable to compensate for the said money and damages incurred therefrom.

Judgment

Where a public official inflicts damage on another person in violation of the statutes intentionally or by negligence while performing his/her duties, the State Compensation Act, a special law, applies, and such public official’s act is deemed an act of the State or a local government, and thus, cannot be held liable for tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41471, Jan. 18, 2008). Under the foregoing, it is limited to whether the Defendant is liable for damages under Article

related.