1. The plaintiffs' primary claim against the Central Land Expropriation Committee is dismissed.

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Under the River Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the term "fourth River Slaughter Project" (hereinafter referred to as the "fourth River Subdivision Project") means a project implemented with respect to the four major rivers, such as Han River, Nakdong River, Geum River, Geum River, Yeongsan River, and Yeongsan River in accordance with the comprehensive water control plan and basic river plan under the River Act and the project implemented with respect to the four major rivers, which solves water problems by preventing flood droughts, restoring and utilizing river ecosystems, and systematically and systematically manage and implement the project to promote balanced regional development, regional economy, and culture and tourism. The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, etc. established and announced the fourth major river master plan to present the basic direction of the fourth major river project on June 8, 2009, and published the final report of the fourth major river Subdivision project implementation plan on August 24, 2009.

The notice was given.

C. The Plaintiffs were engaged in the organic farming in the Gyeonggi-si H Group, which is located within the instant public works site. However, the Defendant Republic of Korea agreed with the Plaintiffs on the transfer expenses and business compensation for obstacles to the ground, but failed to reach such agreement, and applied for the adjudication to the Central Land Expropriation Committee.

Therefore, although the Central Land Tribunal submitted to Defendant 2 the assertion that some obstacles were omitted in the list of obstacles to the subject of compensation, Defendant 2 had no application for adjudication on the omitted portion, and the Central Land Tribunal subsequently decided that the request for adjudication on the omitted portion should be dealt with by the project implementer, and it did not accept the above assertion by the Plaintiffs, and on April 1, 201, it did not accept the Plaintiffs’ obstacles, and on September 2, 201.