1. Of the instant lawsuits, Articles 61, 62, 75, and 75 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 5, 2008, the Plaintiff, including the status of the parties, is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant fish farm”). The Defendant is the project implementer of the “D business” (public notice E of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs; hereinafter “instant business”) with the project period from November 1, 2009 to December 201, 201 during the business period of each house B and C.

The fish farm of this case is located outside the project implementation zone of this case.

B. On January 29, 2010, Slju City entered into an aggregate treatment agreement with the Defendant, who is the project operator of the instant project, to dispose of dredging soil generated from F, G, and H work districts during the instant project, and intended to manage and sell the contaminated soil transported and accumulated by the Defendant in accordance with the said agreement. Pursuant to the said agreement, Slju City permitted temporary use of land for other than the purpose of dredging land to be used for dredging land, with the consent of owners of the land outside I and 107 land except for the instant fish farms. The Defendant started to transport dredging land from March 2010 to January 2, 201, and completed dredging landing around 13-23 meters high.

C. On the other hand, on March 5, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with J on the instant fish farm at KRW 20,000 with the Plaintiff, but the said lease agreement was terminated by mutual agreement on the 16th of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 12 through 14 (including the number), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of appraiser K's appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the underlying statute of the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is not clear, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was not clearly withdrawn, and thus, the Plaintiff’s complaint of this case and the purport and purport of the claim of September 25, 2015.