1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Basic Facts

Plaintiff

A and B are the owners of 1/3 shares of forest E 853 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the Defendant Republic of Korea is the owners of 1,534 square meters in F-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, the said forest, and 1,534 square meters in width.

On July 23, 2010, as the price for the day of the military granted due to heavy rain occurs, the Defendant-based group, around October 2010, invested approximately KRW 138,500,000 based on the restoration plan finalized at the meeting of the Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasure Headquarters in accordance with the Framework Act on Disaster and Safety Management and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and promoted the flood restoration project by installing a waterway of KRW 702 meters in length according to naturally formed small rivers at the time.

Some of the waterway conduits established accordingly (hereinafter “instant waterway”) are located in part of the forest land of this case.

Plaintiff

A filed a lawsuit against Defendant Republic of Korea for removal of waterway and delivery of land installed on the instant forest land as the Daejeon District Court 2017Gadan745. On October 19, 2017, the said court rendered a judgment that “it cannot be readily concluded that the Gun Office established a waterway as part of the Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasure Headquarters’s restoration and prevention project at the request of the Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasure Headquarters, or that the act of installing the waterway was unlawful, or that the cause to the Plaintiff was inflicted on the Plaintiff.” The said judgment became final and conclusive.

Plaintiff

B filed a lawsuit for removal of waterway and delivery of land with the Daejeon District Court 2018Kadan1561, Daejeon District Court 2018. On October 25, 2018, the above court filed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the construction of the waterway by the Defendant Assignment Group is unlawful, or cannot be deemed as an interference with the Plaintiff’s ownership, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant Assignment Group actually controlled the land on which the waterway was installed in light of social norms.”