The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited by the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 8 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the main sentence of

2. The summary of the part that was changed by this court is corrected to correct the obvious clerical error or calculation error as shown in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the first instance court determined that this part of the part of the land first in this case was " unlawfully changed to the form and quality of the land" (the fourth 17th e.g., the judgment of the court of first instance) and again made a somewhat contradictory judgment as follows: "The form and quality of the land are not changed to the orchard from forest to orchard (the fifth 4th e.g., the judgment of the court of first instance)." This court recognized that "It is difficult to view this part as changing to the form and quality of the forest, not the alteration to the form and quality of the forest as an orchard, but the afforestation permission received by the plaintiff alone, as an orchard, it is difficult to view this part as changing to the form and quality

▣ 제1심판결서 3쪽 13행의 “3,186,142,400원”을 “3,192,610,400원”으로, “제①부분 1,863,980,300원(=12,049㎡ × 154,700원/㎡)”을 “제①부분 1,870,448,300원{=1,863,980,300원(=12,049㎡ × 154,700원/㎡) 6,468,000원(=147㎡ × 44,000원/㎡)}”으로 각 고친다.

▣ 제1심판결서 3쪽 20행의 “3,450,073,800원(=3,186,142,400원 257,463,400원 89,817,600원)“을 ”3,450,073,800원(=3,192,610,400원 257,463,400원)“으로 고친다.

▣ 제1심판결서 4쪽 17행부터 19행까지를 다음과 같이 고친다.

“과수원으로 형질변경된 토지로 볼 수 없으므로, 그 지목과 현황에 따라 임야를 전제로 보상금이 산정되어야 한다.” ▣ 제1심판결서 4쪽 22행의 "제①부분은 불법으로 형질변경된 토지로 볼 수...