1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment, except where the “this court” under Section 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be the “Uwon District Court”. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the instant land was incorporated into a bank’s site or an area excluded from the bank due to the instant river work, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, was restricted from using and earning profit from the instant land. Thus, the Defendant, a river management agency, is obligated to pay compensation to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 76 of the River Act. 2) The Plaintiff purchased the instant land from I, the owner of the instant land, at the time when the instant land was incorporated into a river area, and received the ownership transfer and received the claim for compensation for losses from the transfer of the ownership. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay compensation for losses due to the incorporation

3) Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”)

Article 25(1) of the Enforcement Rule provides that the unpaid land shall be paid as compensation for the unpaid land for the “land which is a site for public works and for which compensation has not been paid.” Since the instant land falls under the unpaid land, the Defendant is obligated to pay compensation for losses to the Plaintiff pursuant to the above provision. 4) The Plaintiff purchased the instant land from J, the actual owner, around 1976, and entrusted the ownership of the instant land to I but completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff from around 1976 to around 2001, and thus, the title truster’s status as to the instant land was also the Plaintiff.