1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,684,124 as well as 5% per annum from May 5, 2015 to December 2, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 2-2; and Eul's testimony as a witness Eul, the plaintiff left a rice farm house in the farmland of this case owned by the defendant from 2010 to 2010 with permission from the defendant; the defendant listened to the small sense that the industrial complex was located in the farmland of this case at Eul around 2013 and decided that the plaintiff will no longer live in the farmland of this case; the plaintiff formed a farming house in the farmland of this case at general E industrial complex by 2014, and the defendant did not set a farming house from 2015 to 2014, Jan. 21, 2014.

2. 10. Following the sale of the instant farmland to FF Co., Ltd. and the completion of the registration of ownership transfer on December 29, 2014 and February 16, 2015, the fact that a farmer, who is a farmer, residing in the relevant area, has received compensation for farming as to the instant farmland and received KRW 23,368,248.

B. Determination compensation shall be made in cases where a person who cultivates farmland within a public project implementation zone is unable to continue farming in the future due to expropriation of the farmland, and a special sacrifice occurs in the future. According to Article 77(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, farming compensation shall be in principle compensated to the actual farmer. According to the above recognition, the defendant has been allowed from 2010 to continuously cultivate the farmland of this case and continuously cultivated the farmland of this case to the plaintiff from 2010, and the plaintiff has continued to cultivate the farmland of this case, and no further permission has been granted to the plaintiff. Thus, if the defendant did not enter the industrial complex of this case, the plaintiff continued to cultivate the farmland of this case.