1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 536 square meters in Geumcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City B, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Since 1993 to 1998, when a land readjustment project was implemented, the land readjustment project was implemented, 104 square meters out of the above land was divided and the number of D was set on August 14, 1998, and the area of the land B in Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City was 432 square meters in size.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) B.

In accordance with Article 8 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 7592 of Jul. 13, 2005; hereinafter “former River Act”) and Article 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the River Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 530 of Mar. 14, 2005), the Defendant publicly announced that he/she designates ASEAN as a local second-class local river (Act No. 2004-337 of the Public Notice of Jeollabuk-do) on December 17, 2004, he/she designated the instant land to be incorporated into a river area in ASEAN (hereinafter “instant designation”).

C. On August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for compensation for losses on the ground that the instant land was incorporated as a river area of a local second-class river and limited use and profit-making, but did not reach agreement. On February 26, 2015, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the said application on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the instant land was a river before the instant designation, and thus, the said designation was incurred any damage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim

A. Since the plaintiff was restricted from using and earning profit from the land of this case due to the designation of the defendant's assertion of this case, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the plaintiff's loss pursuant to Article 74 of the former River Act.

The plaintiff is primarily the land of this case.