1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part pertaining to the participation in the appeal is the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the disposition is identical to the corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance except for the second instance court's first instance court's third party's third party's third party's third party's third party's third party's decision and fourth party's third party's third party's third party's decision. Thus, this part's explanation is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this subparagraph is the same as that of the first instance judgment).

B. The instant lawsuit was finalized on December 29, 2010 (the lawsuit related to the original airfield), January 20, 201, and accordingly, the Republic of Korea deposited 18,071,454,120 won (i.e., compensation and litigation costs arising from the instant lawsuit for damages over 15 times from March 11, 201 to July 6, 2012) in an overseas exchange bank account in the name of the Plaintiff (=624,484,810 won related to the compensation related to the original airfield).

A person shall be appointed.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Plaintiff was the representative attorney of the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, who was operating the Seocho Branch Office as a representative attorney of the Plaintiff, has independently accepted the Plaintiff’s lawsuit and actually continued the lawsuit in the form of a sub-agent even after the Intervenor dismissed the Intervenor from the Plaintiff’s representative and operated a separate individual office, and the instant fees, etc. paid by the Intervenor as the judgment of the said lawsuit became final and conclusive, are deposited into the Intervenor’s account as it is, therefore, deemed that the instant fees, etc. were reverted to the Intervenor, not the Plaintiff. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case on different premise is unlawful. 2) The Defendant against the Plaintiff on May 1, 2014.