1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,285,90 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 1, 2018 to August 13, 2019.

1. Case history

A. The Governor of Gangwon-do shall establish the B-Road on August 22, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Road”).

3) A public announcement was made on the determination of the road zone (a modification) with the content of implementing the accurate packaging Corporation (hereinafter “instant Project”).

(Public Notice C of this case; hereinafter referred to as the "Public Notice of this case").

The plaintiff is exempted from all the entry of the "Gangcheon-gun of Gangwon-gu" D (hereinafter referred to as the "Gangcheon-gun of Gangwon-gu").

The previous 15,703 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant partition”). However, as the instant road passes through the said land, the said land was divided into the instant remaining land of D,514 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”), E, 5,873 square meters, and F, 5,993 square meters. Of these, F land was completed on January 16, 2009 due to an agreement on the acquisition of the public land as of January 14, 2009.

C. On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that “the value of the remaining land of this case was diminished due to the road of this case,” and filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for adjudication seeking compensation for the compensation of the remaining land. D.

On October 19, 2017, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rejected the said application on the ground that “the said application is unlawful since it is an application after the lapse of one year from the date of completion of construction works.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7 (including each number if there is a paper number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The land before the instant partition was not a franchisor, and the entire land was composed of a perfect slope.

However, due to the construction of the road of this case, the land was divided into both sides of the road, and the remaining land of this case became a blind spot on the law side of the acute slope.

In other words, the value of the remaining land of this case was reduced due to the construction of the road of this case.

In addition, the road should be newly constructed to enter the above land.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the compensation of the remaining land of this case and the land value.