1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part claiming revocation of the absentee disposition and the part claiming compensation for underground drainage facilities, respectively.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project name; 1) Project name: Housing site development project (B district development project (j) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”);

(2) Public notice: Defendant 3 project implementer publicly announced by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on September 3, 2013:

(b) Objects subject to expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on November 20, 2014 (1): - 11 weeks of night trees, mulberry trees, 8 weeks of mulberry trees, 19 weeks of bank trees, 4 weeks of bamboo trees: 2 weeks of bamboo trees, 2 weeks of pine trees, 3 weeks of pine trees - 18 square meters of residential containers, 20.06 square meters of farm machinery, storage, 100 square meters of floor, 3 square meters of outdoor toilets, 23 square meters of mother trees, 200 square meters of waste, 30 square meters of waste, 200 square meters of waste trees, 30 square meters of waste trees, 23 square meters of waste trees, 30 square meters of waste trees, 200 square meters of waste trees, 30 square meters of waste trees, 200 square meters of waste trees, 3 square meters of Gu trees, 120 square meters of agricultural land, 120 square meters of agricultural land, 120 square meters of fertilizers, 1.

(c) Objects to be expropriated by the Central Land Tribunal as of August 20, 2015 (Adjudication 1) : Total amount of compensation for losses: 22,065,000 won as of the objects to be expropriated in the adjudication of expropriation: 22,065,000 won: An appraisal corporation: Gyeong-il appraisal corporation, Sam Chang-il appraisal corporation [Grounds for Recognition], without any dispute, Gap evidence 7, and Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including each number, and the purport of the whole pleadings);

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for revocation of the absentee disposition among the lawsuit in this case

A. On July 16, 2014 and August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, the Defendant issued a non-resident disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not appear. The judgment criteria are abstract and vague, and the reasons presented in fact as the basis for the non-resident judgment are presented.