1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is the same as the ground for the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional parts. Thus, this case is quoted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “The remaining land of this case was not connected to the passage, but no way to enter the remaining land of this case was available due to the lack of passage due to the Defendant’s confinement, and thus no longer possible.”

However, it seems that the passage of the plaintiff at the beginning is merely limited to the passage which has been actually used, and the passage has not been legally guaranteed, and the use of the passage has been restricted due to the difference of elevation, etc.

Furthermore, given that the Defendant’s expropriation ceases to exist, it is difficult to view that it is substantially difficult to use the remaining land as the previous purpose due to the implementation of the instant project, so long as the Defendant is to take measures to allow entry to agricultural machinery, such as utilizing the land to be expropriated, etc., and linking the remaining land to the existing passage, such as linking the existing passage, as shown in the attached Form.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.