1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

On August 22, 2009, the Defendant publicly announced a plan for compensating for losses due to the implementation of the C Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”).

(hereinafter “instant public announcement”). On November 17, 201, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the amount of farming compensation for eight parcels outside Chungcheongnam-Nam and the amount of compensation for obstacles to the fish farm operated on D’s ground (hereinafter “instant fish farm”). On November 22, 201, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10,084,610, and the amount of compensation for obstacles (hereinafter “instant fish farm”).

B. From October 2010 to December 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of compensation for the closure of the instant fish farm. Accordingly, the Defendant sent a reply that it is impossible to compensate because it did not report inland fisheries on the instant fish farm as at the time of the public announcement of the public announcement of the business regarding the instant fish farm.

On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission on the Defendant’s reply. However, the said commission should be premised on the fact that an administrative agency legally has a legal obligation to make a certain disposition regarding a party’s application for administrative appeal to seek compensation from the Plaintiff. However, in this case, the Plaintiff rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Defendant did not have a legal obligation to compensate the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant’s act of compensating for losses that the Defendant ought to pay is not an administrative disposition that is the subject of administrative appeal.

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not go through the adjudication procedure of the Land Tribunal regarding the compensation for the closure of business or the compensation for fishery right of the fish farm.

C. The Plaintiff against the Defendant at Daejeon District Court: (a) KRW 63,083,493; and (b) business compensation for the closure of the instant fish farm business.