1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the court of first instance is the same as that of the court of first instance, except where the case is used or added as follows:

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] 1-A

this subsection shall be filled by the following:

The plaintiff is the owner of each building indicated in the separate sheet that is adjacent to each other, and the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the name of each plaintiff on February 13, 2004 with respect to the building listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 1994, and the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2, 1994.

Part 2, Part 7 "The goods protocol of the above public notice" has been written as "the goods protocol attached to the public notice of February 23, 2006 for the authorization of the above implementation plan".

Part 2, Part 8 "Annexed building" shall be built with "Annexed building".

The plaintiff in the first place of the third place shall be referred to as "the defendant".

Part 3, part 13 "Annexed building" shall be cut into "Annexed building".

The 3-face 13 square meters "2 square meters" shall be added to "5 square meters".

It is reasonable to see that the building specified in paragraph (1) of the attached Table has been included in the procedure and compensation procedure as the expropriation ruling and compensation procedure for the building stated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table was carried out in front of the last 3rd place, and that the compensation has been made.

Part 4: The following shall be added to Part 2:

In addition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the above building was removed without any justifiable compensation for the building listed in the attached Table No. 1, and the Plaintiff has unjust enrichment or damage claim against the Defendant.

Even if this is a right to a local government for the purpose of paying money, and the period of extinctive prescription is five years pursuant to Article 82(2) and (1) of the Local Finance Act, the Plaintiff asserts that the ten-year extinctive prescription period should be applied based on the Supreme Court Decision 2016Da20244 Decided September 28, 2016. However, the above decision is based on the foregoing ruling.