1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of ruling;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each land of this case”) and each land of this case is located in the river area B, a local river.

B. On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff requested consultations on compensation for losses from a river site at the time of the strike, which was delegated by the Defendant to compensate for the unclaimed land for a local river, and around April 6, 2015, the period of strike submitted an application for compensation through a request for unclaimed land as to the land incorporated into a river due to a cause such as excessive river works, etc., and notified that each year the compensation is being carried out in order within budgetary limits, and attached an application form for compensation for unclaimed land incorporated into a river in attached Form.

C. However, on April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff left the city of Pakistan.

On April 22, 2015, without preparing and submitting an application for the compensation of unincorporated land into a river, the reason why the compensation is expected at any time, and if the compensation is delayed, the reason was asked. On April 22, 2015, the period of the compensation of unclaimed land was paid to the Plaintiff in order through budgetary cultivation, and the compensation is paid for the portion of the application for the year 2007 due to the limited budget allocation rate, and it is difficult to expect the compensation period of each land of this case.

Even thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of compensation for losses against the Defendant with the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee without preparing and submitting an application for compensation for the unclaimed land incorporated as a river. The Central Land Expropriation Committee transferred the instant case on November 19, 2015, did not have any consultation with the Defendant, who is the project implementer, and thus dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for adjudication on the ground that it should first consult with the Defendant and make a decision on the request for expropriation

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4 through 9, .