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.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the first instance is consistent with Paragraph 2, which states that it is necessary to add or supplement the grounds of the judgment of the first instance among the matters alleged by the plaintiff as the grounds of appeal and the claims raised by the first instance court among those raised by the plaintiff as the grounds of appeal in the first instance court. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, except for the revision of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article

The second written judgment of the court of first instance (based on recognition) shall add “B No. 5” to the item “(based on recognition”) of the second written judgment.”

The Plaintiff deposited KRW 11,722,50 as the deposit officer of Jeju District Court from September 25, 2013 to the deposit officer of Jeju District Court from September 2013, 2013, and KRW 1,695,100 as the deposit officer of Jeju District Court from February 4, 2014 to KRW 150 as the deposit officer of Jeju District Court from February 4, 2014. The Plaintiff reserved an objection on October 24, 2013 and paid the former deposit money, and then paid the latter deposit money to the “L” in accordance with the first instance judgment of the first instance court.

2. Additional and Supplementary statements

A. As to illegality of the instant expropriation ruling, the Plaintiff unilaterally expropriated the instant land without any objective verification as to the necessity of the project to develop areas requiring improvement of areas requiring improvement of areas requiring improvement of areas requiring improvement of areas requiring improvement of natural disaster areas, while designating and publicly notifying the instant land designated as natural green areas as areas requiring improvement of areas requiring improvement of areas requiring improvement of areas, without giving the Plaintiff, who is the owner of more than half of the total area of 11,935 square meters, an opportunity to submit opinions under the Public Works Act, and without notifying the result of prior assessment of disasters under the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act, and such procedural error is in violation of procedural law.