(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.2.23.선고 2007가합21363 판결

1. The Agency for Defense Development and the Republic of Korea shall pay to each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet of damages compensation in the amount of each of the above amounts and each of the above amounts from March 23, 2007 to the Agency for Defense Development, the amount of 5% per annum from March 24, 2007 to February 23, 2012, and the amount of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Agency for Defense Development, and between the Republic of Korea is assessed against the Plaintiffs as indicated in the separate damages list, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant ○○ Group as indicated in the separate damages list, respectively, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants as indicated in the dismissal list is assessed against the Plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendants set forth in the separate sheet of plaintiffs in the separate sheet of plaintiffs in the column of "request amount" in the separate sheet of appraisal results.

The next day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to each of the above amounts shall be the day of full payment.

shall pay 20% interest per annum by each proportion of 20% interest.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Status of a party;

Attached Table 'The plaintiffs' list of the plaintiffs' registration of fishing vessels and fishery permits are small fishermen who live in the port area of ○○○○-gun, △△△△, and engage in various coastal fisheries. The defendant Agency for Defense Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Research Institute") is established by the Act on the Agency for Defense Development and is in charge of technical research, research, development, and testing of weapons, equipment, and materials necessary for national defense, and research, research, and testing of science and technology related thereto. The defendant Republic of Korea supervises the above Agency for Defense Development through the Administrator of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration entrusted by the Minister of National Defense, who is an administrative agency to which he belongs, with the supervisory authority.

B. Establishment of a marine shooting range by Defendant Republic of Korea

Around 1978, the Minister of National Defense, who is an administrative agency belonging to the Republic of Korea, established a shooting range (private distance 13K), 2 marine shooting range (private distance 23 KK), as shown in the attached Form 1 of "Attachment 1 to △△△△△△△, 1978, such as "the layout map and operation status of the marine test shooting range", and the 3 marine test shooting range (private distance 180 KK) for the test shooting of leading weapons, the Minister of National Defense established the 4 marine test shooting range (private distance 35 KK for the shooting of guns, guns, and ammunition) for the test shooting of guns. In addition, around 1987, the 5 marine test shooting range (private distance 14 KK) for the test shooting of guns was established, and all of the above 5-day marine test shooting range was established.

또한, 이 사건 해상사격장 부근은 1977. 5. 1. 자 국방부 작 9 * *. 3 * * 에 의하여 전쟁장비 연구시설지역 보호구역으로 설정되었고, 1989. 12. 15. 자 국방부 군시 2 * * * * - 3 * * * 에 의하여 군사시설 보호구역이 확대 조정되었으며 2000. 10. 20. 자 육군 제2162부대 작전 3 * * * * - 1 * * 에 의하여 ◁◁도 지역이 군사시설 보호구역으로 추가 설정되는 등 국방부장관에 의하여 군사시설보호법상 군사시설보호구역으로 지정되어 있다. 피고 연구소의 이 사건 시험장 사용

Since the establishment of the marine shooting range of this case, the defendant research institute continued to conduct a marine test shooting for the performance test of guns, ammunitions, and leading weapons in the above marine shooting range. The defendant research institute conducted a marine test shooting for leading weapons at least once every day during the 220th day of the year average, and conducted a test shooting for leading weapons once every two months (hereinafter referred to as the "marine test shooting for the marine test shooting range of this case").

As safety measures for the test shooting of this case, the defendant research institute prepared and reported a maritime shooting plan to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by no later than 45 days before the date of the test shooting pursuant to the safety management guidelines for the marine shooting range (joint collaboration ******* -5*) of the Minister of National Defense, and obtained approval from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by no later than 20 days before the shooting. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in accordance with the above maritime shooting plan, notified the Do governor every month of the maritime shooting plan to the Do governor every month, requested a guidance for the safe operation of the ship, and received support from the Navy and the Air Force for the safety of the marine area in question while conducting the test shooting, and controls the entry of the ship into the marine area by using direct control vessels (hereinafter referred to as the "the entry control of the marine shooting range of this case").

D. Fishermen adjacent to the maritime shooting range in which the restriction on fishing by fishermen due to the entry control of the instant case was imposed restrictions on fishing at the instant sea due to the entry control of the Defendant research institute every time the said restriction was established.

Some of the plaintiffs were engaged in various coastal fisheries upon obtaining permission for fisheries in the neighboring sea areas of the instant maritime shooting range, as shown in the annexed Table of Compensation for Damages, and the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff fishermen") were engaged in fisheries with permission for fisheries in the neighboring sea areas of the instant maritime shooting range from March 16, 2004, previous three years prior to the date of the instant lawsuit, or owned a fishing vessel with a certificate of shipment issued by ○○ Gun, and were engaged in various coastal fisheries with the period from March 16, 2004 to the date of the instant lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as "the damage compensation period of this case") in whole or in part.

[The above fishermen's fishery status is recognized by the statements in Gap's 5 through 819 (the copy of each fishery permit and the copy of each certificate of shipment). The defendant research institute stated that the plaintiff fishermen's fishery status "the permission period" of the plaintiffs' fishing vessel registration and fishery permit status table "the plaintiffs' fishing vessel registration and fishery permit status table" among the plaintiff fishermen cannot be viewed as being engaged in fishery by obtaining a license in the vicinity of the above maritime shooting range for the above period because the registration is not verified or the permission is not verified in the fishing vessel registration register of ○○ military or the coastal fishery permit register of ○○ military fishing range. However, the fishing vessel registration register of ○○ military and the coastal fishery permit register ( Eul evidence 26-1, 2, and 3) presented as the grounds for the above assertion are not the period for claiming damages of this case, i.e., the plaintiff fishermen's compensation, but the period for continuing the lawsuit of this case.

Unlike the copy of the fishery permit issued by the aforementioned Plaintiff fishermen and the copy of the shipment certificate, it is insufficient to recognize that each fishery permit was revoked or terminated during the period for which the Plaintiff fishermen sought compensation. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs asserted that all of the Plaintiffs continued to engage in the fishery business after obtaining a fishery permit in the neighboring sea areas of the instant maritime shooting range before the instant maritime shooting range was established, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

E. In order to recover from damage by asserting that the fishermen nearby the marine shooting range of this case suffered limited damage due to the entry control of this case, some fishermen filed and withdrawn a lawsuit claiming compensation against the defendant Republic of Korea in around 1993. Around 195, the fishermen filed a civil petition claiming compensation for damage with the National Ombudsman around 1998 and around 2 times around 2001, but all of the "the entry control of this case constitutes a restriction on fisheries which does not require compensation under the Fisheries Act."

Accordingly, the fishermen filed a petition for the amendment of the Fisheries Act or the enactment of a special law for remedying damage to fishermen in around 2002, and the related special law was submitted to the National Assembly, but it was automatically discarded due to the expiration of the term of office of the National Assembly.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 819, 822 through 826 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence 1 through 6, 25, 32, Eul's evidence 1 through 4, Eul's evidence 1 through 4, Eul's witness's evidence 1, witness's testimony, and red ○○, and the whole purport of the pleadings;

A. The parties' assertion that liability for damages occurred (1)

The plaintiffs fishermen asserted that the above entry control activities for the shooting test of this case constitute "where necessary for the business of national defense and military under Article 34 (1) 5 of the Fisheries Act" and the defendant research institute has a duty to compensate the plaintiff fishermen for losses, the plaintiff fishermen engaged in illegal activities restricting the plaintiff fishermen's fishery by controlling entry of this case without legitimate compensation, and the defendant Republic of Korea participated in the above illegal activities by ordering and supervising the above entry control activities, and therefore the above defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff.

The defendant research institute and the defendant Republic of Korea asserted that the act of access control for the shooting test of this case is "where it is necessary for national defense under Article 34 (1) 2 and 3 of the Fisheries Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act", and that the defendant research institute and the defendant Republic of Korea have no liability to compensate the plaintiff fishermen, who are only fishery rights holders, for damages due to the above access control, under the proviso of Article 81 (1) 1 of the Fisheries Act.

(2) The defendant research institute's liability for damages

Although the provision on compensation for losses should be applied or analogically applied, if damage was incurred to a person entitled to such compensation due to the implementation of public works without such compensation, such damage constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da11529, Nov. 23, 199, etc.). The fact that the Defendant Research Institute did not compensate the Plaintiff for losses due to the entry control of the Plaintiff to the fishermen is not a dispute between the parties, so the entry control of the instant case constitutes an act subject to compensation for losses.

Article 34 (1) of the Fisheries Act separates "where it is necessary for military training, protection of major military bases or national defense" (Article 2 and 3) and "where it is necessary for business concerning national defense and military affairs" (Article 5). In the case of Article 34 (1) 2 and 3 of the Fisheries Act, Article 81 (1) of the Fisheries Act does not provide compensation for losses, while Article 34 (1) 5 of the Fisheries Act provides that compensation for losses shall be made in the case of Article 34 (1) 5 of the Fisheries Act.

In addition, Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act lists the cases necessary for military training under Article 34 (1) 2 and 3 of the Act, protection of major military bases or national defense under Article 34 (1) 2 and 3 of the Act, (1) where military training is conducted on the sea or on the coast, (2) where necessary on the protection of major military bases located on the sea or on the coast, (3) where necessary to prevent or defend enemy's infiltration on the coast, (4) where necessary for safe operation, such as the prevention of fishing vessel supply in a specific sea area and steering zone, (5) where the Minister of National Defense has agreed with the head of the relevant administrative agency as he/she deems it necessary on a strategic and tactical basis, the test of this case constitutes a test for national defense under Article 14 (1) of the Fisheries Act, as part of the technical investigation, research, development and test of weapons and materials necessary for national defense, and as part of the examination, which constitutes a test for national defense under Article 14 (1) of the Fisheries Act.

한편, 피고 연구소는 이 사건 해상사격장이 군사시설보호구역으로 설정되어 있으므로, 이 사건 출입통제가 수산업법 시행령 제19조 제2호의 ' 해상 또는 해안에 위치한 주요군기지의 보위상 필요한 경우 ' 라고도 주장하고, 이 사건 해상사격장의 발사기지가 설치된 □□ ○○군 남면 ◁◁도리가 군사시설보호구역으로 설정되어 있는 사실은 앞에서 본 바와 같으나, 을나 제1호증의 1, 2 각 기재에 변론전체의 취지를 종합하면 , ◁◁도 육상지역 ( 모래사장 포함 ) 만이 출입통제가 허용되는 통제보호구역으로 설정되어 있고, 해상지역 ( 해안으로부터 반경 1km 이내 ) 은 사진촬영 등만이 금지되는 제한보호구역으로 설정된 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 이 사건 출입통제가 이 사건 해상사격장 해역이 군사시설보호구역임을 근거로 하였다고 볼 수도 없어, 위 수산업법 시행령 제19조 제2호에서 규정한 주요군기지의 보위상 필요한 경우라고 할 수도 없다 .

Therefore, the Defendant Research Institute, which was in force at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, has a duty to compensate the Plaintiff fishermen for losses arising from the restriction on the said fishing due to the restriction on the fishing of the Plaintiff fishermen before restricting the Plaintiff fishermen’s fishery due to the entry control under Article 34(1)5 and Article 81(1)1 main sentence and (3) of the Fisheries Act, which was in force at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, but is obliged to compensate for losses incurred to the Plaintiff fishermen by continuously performing the entry control from the time of the establishment of the instant maritime shooting range

As seen earlier, Defendant Republic of Korea established the instant maritime shooting range, and directed and supervised the Defendant’s research institute’s conduct of test shooting and access control in the instant maritime shooting range without compensation for losses to the Plaintiff fishermen. Accordingly, Defendant Republic of Korea is liable for joint tort with the Defendant’s research institute as to the damages incurred by the Plaintiff fishermen. (4) The Defendant’s defense of exemption from liability for damages incurred to the Plaintiff fishermen.

The Defendant Research Institute, and the Republic of Korea asserts that even if tort liability of the said Defendants is recognized, the Plaintiff fishermen started the fishery in the above sea area with the intent to recognize the fact that the restriction on the fishery due to entry and exit control on the adjacent sea areas of the instant marine shooting range was imposed, and thus, the Defendant Research Institute and the Republic of Korea’s liability should be exempted

In light of the above evidence, the plaintiff fishermen obtained permission for fisheries in the neighboring sea areas of the marine shooting range after around 1994 when the marine fishing range of this case was established, and since the above marine shooting range was almost every day-day, the above marine shooting range was widely known. Since the above marine shooting range was established, the plaintiff fishermen obtained fishery rights in neighboring sea areas without recognizing or recognizing by negligence the restrictions on fishery due to the test shooting of this case after the establishment of the marine shooting range of this case. However, considering the characteristics of the area where the plaintiffs reside and the economic activities of the area where they are located, unless there are special grounds for criticism such as the plaintiff fishermen's commencement of fishery business in the above sea area to use the above marine fishing range of this case due to the restriction on fishery, it is difficult to view that the above marine shooting range of this case was restricted or did not recognize the restriction on fishery due to negligence, and thus, it is difficult to view that the research institute of Korea is exempt from liability for damages under the principle of equitable compensation for damages.

(5) Extinctive prescription defense

The defendant research institute asserts that since all of the marine shooting ranges in this case were established between 1978 and 1994 and started to use the above marine shooting range from around that time, the statute of limitations expired since the plaintiff fishermen did not file a claim for compensation for losses or damages with respect to the establishment of the above marine shooting range, even if the plaintiff fishermen did not file a claim for at least ten years.

However, in the case of continuous illegal acts such as access control due to the test shooting of this case, the damage occurred from new illegal acts each day, and in calculating the starting point of the extinctive prescription, the extinctive prescription period from the time when each damage was known to each day is completed. Since the plaintiff fishermen sought compensation for the damage that occurred within 3 years retroactively from the date of the filing of the lawsuit of this case, the above claim for the completion of the extinctive prescription is without merit.

B. The method of calculating the amount of losses of the Plaintiff fishermen under relevant laws and regulations (1) within the scope of liability for damages;

The plaintiff fishermen seek compensation for damages for the previous three years as of the filing date of the instant lawsuit. The amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff fishermen due to shooting tests and access control in the marine shooting range of this case without due compensation procedures shall be the amount equivalent to the ratio of the period during which the plaintiff fishermen engaged in the fishery after obtaining a fishery permit during the period of compensation for the above three years. According to the provisions of Article 81(4) of the Fisheries Act and Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, where the permitted or reported fishery business is restricted, the amount of losses for the fishery business is "amount of losses calculated in consideration of the period of restriction and degree of restriction, etc. of the fishery business" in accordance with the calculation method of attached Table 4 I - 2 - (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, which falls under the amount of compensation for the three years of the daily income of the plaintiff fishermen. The next method shall be deemed as losses based on the above calculation method.

(2) In full view of the result of the commission of appraisal on the amount of damages due to the instant access control, the result of the commission of appraisal by the chief of the ○○ University Fisheries Research Institute, the result of the commission of further appraisal by the chief of the ○○ University Fisheries Research Institute, and the result of fact-finding on the chief of the ○○ University Fisheries Research Institute, in principle, the amount of the Plaintiff fishermen’s compensation should be the difference between the amount of the Plaintiff fishermen’s compensation, i.e., the amount of the annual income during the three-year period prior to the access control of the instant case, i.e., the amount of the Plaintiff fishermen’s compensation

In light of the following facts: ① the hours of the Plaintiff’s fishing operation from 0:00 to 30:0,000 a.m., the average of 19:5 hours from 08:30 am to 19:00 m.; ② the hours of the Plaintiff’s fishing operation were 3:00 p.m. to 2:0 p.m., the average of 10:0 p.m. (2) the hours of the Plaintiff’s fishing operation were 2:0 p.m. to 3:0 p.m., the average of 2:00 p.m. during which the Plaintiff’s fishing operation was 3:0 p.m. to 0:0 p.m. to 30:0 a.m., the annual average of 5:5 hours of the Plaintiff’s fishing operation from 2:0 p.m. to 308:0 p.m.; and ② the annual average of 1:5 hours of the Plaintiff’s fishing operation during which the fishermen could actually engage.

On the other hand, the defendant research institute stated that the amount of losses calculated by the president of the ○ University Fisheries Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as the "amount of appraised losses of this case") as stated in the above paragraph (2) is under the premise that the defendant research institute's access to the entire sea areas adjacent to the maritime shooting range of this case from 08:30 to 19:00 per day, and that the fishermen's access control was prohibited from engaging in fishing activities including departure during the above hours. The plaintiff's access control was under the premise that the vessel's operation at the maritime shooting range of this case was not conducted at all during the above hours. ① The defendant research institute established the goal point, namely, the anticipated coal landing point, and established the goal point, namely, the 2K or 3KK coast, centering on the anticipated coal landing point, set up the dangerous areas below and controlled the fishing activities of the vessel or the fishing activities of the vessel at the sea of this case, and the remaining areas within the 20th of the vessel's vessel's vessel's operation at the sea level of excluding the vessel.

The plaintiff's actual amount of damages is much less than the above appraisal loss, and the testimony of the witness Dog-○ alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant research institute's access control section of this case extends less than 10% of the marine fishing range of this case or that the plaintiff's above fishermen could not engage in fishery activities in areas other than the above access control section, and there is no evidence to accept all of the defendant research institute's arguments. On the other hand, the above evidence Eul's 9,10,13 through 23, 29, 33, and 34 were added to the marine shooting range's marine shooting range's Maritime shooting range's Maritime shooting range's Maritime shooting range's Maritime shooting range's Maritime shooting range's Maritime shooting range's Maritime Inspection Inspection of the plaintiff research institute's 30: 12:00 p.m. to 18:0, the fishery research institute's Maritime Inspection of the plaintiff's Maritime Research and Development Institute's Maritime Inspection of the plaintiff.

Based on the above statistics, the appraisal loss of this case was calculated excessively rather than the actual amount of damage of the plaintiff fishermen, considering the following circumstances: (a) the plaintiff fishermen's fishing vessels did not include profits from private trade, and (b) the plaintiff fishermen's fishing vessels are small fishing vessels with less than five tons, and the surrounding areas of the marine shooting range of this case near the coast of this case, which are the main fishing sea area.

Furthermore, the court is recognized as having property damage in a claim for damages due to nonperformance, but it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage due to the nature of the case.

The lower court determined the amount of damages by comprehensively taking account of all relevant indirect facts, including the relationship between the parties revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the background leading up to the nonperformance of obligation and the occurrence of property damage therefrom, the nature of damage, and various circumstances after the occurrence of damage (see Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da40505, Oct. 14, 2010; 2006Da64627, Sept. 10, 2009). The same applies to tort liability. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the amount of damages for three years by the Plaintiff fishermen due to the access control of the instant case (hereinafter referred to as the “amount of losses of this case”) shall be deemed as the amount equivalent to 50% of the amount of losses of the instant appraisal.

(4) As seen earlier than the reduction due to risk approach, the Plaintiff fishermen established the marine shooting range of this case, with knowledge or negligence without knowledge of the fact that the entry control of this case was performed, and the restriction on the fishery of this case is a restriction on economic activities, so it is possible to reduce damage to the Plaintiff fishermen, who known and accessed the risks, depending on how they choose any fishing method, as long as they reside in the noise area, such as aircraft noise, as the limitation on economic activities. Accordingly, the amount of damage compensation liability for the Defendant research institute and the Republic of Korea calculated under the above paragraph (3) shall be reduced to 50% of the amount of damage suffered by the Plaintiff fishermen calculated under the above paragraph (3).

(5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant research institute, and the Republic of Korea are obliged to pay each of the above amounts stated in the column of "amount of damages in accordance with the ratio of the period during which the plaintiff fishermen are deemed to have engaged in the fishery after obtaining a permit for each fishery during the damages period of this case (i.e., 50% of the appraised losses of the plaintiff fishermen) to each of the plaintiffs' fishermen (i.e., e., e., 50% of the appraised losses of the plaintiff fishermen)," and the amount stated in the column of "amount of damages" [ = 25% of the appraised losses of the plaintiff fishermen ( = 50% x 50%) during the damages period of this case, 3 years (1095 days), less than 00 won), and 20% of the total damages amount of each of the above amounts from the following day of the damages period of this case to 20% of the total damages amount of the plaintiff fishermen, and the defendant research institute is obliged to pay each of the above amounts of damages from March 23, 2007.

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant ○○-gun

The Plaintiff fishermen filed a claim against Defendant 00 Gun by asserting that Defendant 00 Gun had failed to perform their duty to prevent illegal acts, such as the instant access control without the Defendant research institute’s compensation. However, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 0 Gun forced Defendant 2’s research institute to compensate for losses to the Plaintiff fishermen, or that Defendant 1 had a duty or authority to prevent test shooting or access control without the aforementioned compensation, and there is no other ground to recognize the responsibilities of Defendant 0 Gun. Thus, the Plaintiff fishermen’s claim against Defendant 0 Gun is without merit.

3. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants stated in the separate sheet of dismissal.

A. The Plaintiffs stated in the list of the dismissed in the attached list, asserting that they suffered damages from fishery due to their access control in this case, shall seek compensation against the Defendants.

B. Plaintiffs who are not acknowledged to have obtained fishery permission

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs, as stated above, engaged in a fishery business with permission from ○○ Gun in the waters adjacent to the maritime shooting range of this case during the damages claim period of this case (in light of the above evidence, it is recognized that fishery business was not obtained as stated in the above attached Table or that fishery business was obtained only after the date of this case) above plaintiffs were engaged in a fishery business with permission during the above damages claim period, and therefore, the claims of this case under the premise that the above plaintiffs were fishermen subject to compensation for losses due to them being engaged in a fishery business with permission during the above damages claim period. There is no reason to further examine the remaining issues.

B. The plaintiffs, which should be viewed as denying the restriction on fishery rights, also the plaintiffs, stated as "a ground for rejection of the attached list of dismissed persons" as "a ground for the restriction on fishery rights" as stated above, were those who acquired a fishing vessel or fishing permit after March 16, 2004, which was the base date for claiming compensation for damages, and the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken into account: (i) since the 1990s when the above damages claim period was old, fishermen nearby the marine shooting range of this case were making efforts to continuously receive compensation due to the access control of this case; and (ii) as in this case, the class infringement lawsuit filed by the majority of the plaintiffs, as mentioned above, was instituted over several years; and (iii) if the aforementioned lawsuit preparation was known, there were false occupants or false registrants, etc., the above plaintiffs' right to request the restriction on fishery permission or fishery permit after the above time period for damages claim for the restriction on the fishery right of this case can not be seen as having been acquired.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the defendant research institute of the plaintiff fishermen and the Republic of Korea against the plaintiff fishermen is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the plaintiff fishermen's claim against the defendant 00 military, defendant defense and academic research institute, and the Republic of Korea respectively are dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiffs' claim against the defendants stated in the annexed list of dismissed persons is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges Lee Jae-in

Judges Cho Jae-chul

Judges Lee Il-il

Note tin

1) Subparagraph 5 is "when it is necessary for a public project under Article 4 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor" and is "public project."

Article 4, subparagraph 1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for National Defense and Military Affairs is specified.