1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 1965, Gyeonggi-do announced on March 1, 1965, determined and announced as a river by applying mutatis mutandis C located in Nam-si, Namyang-si, and the area of D river 1,117 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) is indicated as being incorporated into C’s river area on the river ledger prepared around October 1, 1984.

B. On March 20, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Republic of Korea for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership, and made the Republic of Korea on April 28, 2009 to the Plaintiff on the instant land, and obtained a final and conclusive judgment on December 31, 1974, ordering the Plaintiff to cancel registration of preservation of ownership (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da90584, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Na31132, May 22, 2012). Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land on May 22, 2012.

C. On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for adjudication claiming compensation for losses from restrictions on the exercise of rights to use and benefit from the instant land on the ground that the instant land was incorporated into E river area, a local river. The Central Land Expropriation Committee dismissed the claim for compensation on March 24, 2016 on the ground that the extinctive prescription expired.

(hereinafter “instant adjudication”) D.

On January 19, 2017, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rejected an objection on the grounds that the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant judgment on April 1, 2015, filed a lawsuit against the Suwon District Court 2015Guhap63105 against Gyeonggi-do seeking the payment of compensation for losses, but was sentenced to the dismissal judgment on November 11, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion of this case is about the land of this case in 1966.