1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

A. On February 28, 1990, the Plaintiff’s husband D (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of 15,671 square meters and 630 square meters in Jinsung-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). On December 8, 2009, the deceased died, following the agreement on the division of inherited property, the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration was made on April 26, 2010.

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this Agreement is to prescribe matters concerning the use of the Army E-M units with respect to ancient-gun B (24,853 square meters) and C (1,225 square meters) forest land.

Article 3 (Matters Subject to Consultation) Gap (F) and Eul (F) agree to consult on the following matters:

1.A shall, for the purpose of using land B, relocate and restore the access facilities to the original state under the responsibility of A when Party A demands the relocation of the access facilities.

(Provided, That if Article 4 (Guarantee of Implementation of Agreed Matters) A fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, B may remove them ex officio, and A shall not raise any civil or criminal objection against them.

Provided, That at the time of the use of land B, the Party A shall notify in writing at least one month before the date of receipt of the notification and the Party A shall move the area facilities.

In the event of damage to B due to Party A’s failure to comply with the foregoing clause, Party A shall compensate for it.

B. Around March 1999, the Army E unit affiliated with the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant E unit”) agreed that the Defendant unit would use the instant land without setting a period between F and F on behalf of the Deceased (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The main contents of the agreement are as follows.

C. The Defendant unit set up a dust part of the instant land and uses it as a training site.

around October 29, 2012, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff requested the suspension of use of the land of this case on or around November 14, 2012, but it is against the civil petition for reference materials submitted by the defendant on October 10, 2014.