1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff alleged in the parties concerned, while promoting the project of the Si/Eup/Myeon, which is a public works project, the defendant appraised Class 6 obstacles to the land of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and D, which is included in the project site, and notified the plaintiff that he will pay the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 14,307,50 of the compensation for loss compensation. The above compensation for loss compensation is revoked as it is calculated with the omission of one of the obstacles, and the above compensation for loss compensation should be calculated with the omission of one of the obstacles. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the above compensation for loss compensation should be calculated by re-appraisal and the right

In this regard, the defendant's prior defense prior to the merits to the purport that the lawsuit of this case seeking cancellation of appraisal of compensation for consultation on the acquisition of land, etc. for public works, re-assessment of compensation for consultation on compensation for losses, and granting appraisal members' choice and recommendation rights in this case is unlawful.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. First, we examine the part of the instant lawsuit seeking the cancellation of appraisal assessment of compensation for consultation.

An administrative disposition that is the object of an appeal litigation, such as a revocation suit, refers to an act in the public law of an administrative agency that is directly related to the specific rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations with respect to a specific matter, or directly causing other legal effects. Any act that does not directly change the legal status of the other party or other interested persons, etc. may not be a disposition that is the object of an appeal litigation

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu10857, Jul. 23, 199; 2008Du2583, May 15, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s assertion is considered as follows: (a) the Defendant, on June 18, 2015, announced the Plaintiff on the consultation for compensation for losses [the second obstacles of 15 years omitted and the second obstacles (1j)].