1. On December 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a ruling on the use of real estate listed in the attached Table 1, as against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “the instant forest”). The instant forest constitutes a preserved state forest under Article 16(1)1 of the State Forest Act (hereinafter “State Forest Act”).

B. The Korea Rail Network Authority (hereinafter referred to as “project implementer”) prepared a railroad construction project implementation plan pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Railroad Construction Act and obtained approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation. The Minister of Construction and Transportation (the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) announced the implementation plan pursuant to Article 9(4) of the same Act on August 1, 2005 as the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s announcement under Article 205-227 of the same Act.

The project implementer consulted with the Plaintiff to use the forest of this case for the purpose of using the forest of this case, but the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement against the establishment of private rights to state property.

C. On December 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a ruling that “The project implementer shall use the instant forest for the instant project, and the amount of compensation for losses shall be KRW 1,560. The starting date of the use shall be January 30, 2018, and the period of use shall be from the starting date of the use to the continuation of the facilities.”

(hereinafter “instant adjudication”) D.

On July 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the judgment of this case with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s objection.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Form 2 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Determination

A. According to Article 11 of the State Property Act, Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 17 and 21 of the State Forest Act, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot establish private rights to the instant forest, which is a preserved state forest, and without following the procedures and methods prescribed in the State Forest Act, etc.