1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of an area of 505 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Ansan-si, Ansan-si B.

B. On October 25, 2005, the Defendant decided to open a road from the land of the Yan-gu, Seosan-si, Seosan-si to the E land (amended by the urban management plan).

C. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission to compensate for losses on the instant land as soon as possible, although the instant land was incorporated into a site for the construction of a road. On December 21, 2015, the Defendant sent a reply to the purport that, based on Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), the current state of the instant land was determined as a private road in fact pursuant to Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the “Land Compensation Act”). D. On March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a petition to the Defendant to compensate for losses on the current state of the instant land, not “the de facto private road,” rather than “the actual private road,” and the Defendant cannot be determined as “the land owner’s “road or the site at the time of construction of a road” as “the site or site at the time of construction.”

(hereinafter “instant reply”). 【The ground for recognition of the instant reply” does not have any dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Defendant’s response to this case’s main defense is merely an internal business plan or a de facto notification as to the compensation for losses to the land of this case, and against the Plaintiff.