1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On August 27, 2015, the Cheongju District Court Decision 2014Na12608 on the land usage fee case of the Plaintiff’s claim was unlawful since the Reconciliation Recommendation Decision of August 27, 2015, which sought only the previous land usage fee, was judged against the future usage fee beyond the scope of the Plaintiff’s claim.

In addition, since the plaintiff's objection is dismissed unfairly and the decision of recommending reconciliation becomes final and conclusive, the plaintiff can re-request the defendant the land use fee.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff on April 2017, since the Defendant used the “road B in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun as a road site” and occupied it without permission.

B. According to the evidence No. 13, in the Cheongju District Court Claim for Land Use Fees Claim No. 2014Na12608 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 27, 2015, the said court rendered a ruling to recommend reconciliation that “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 300,000 per annum from January 1, 2015 to the end of occupation of the Defendant with respect to the instant land or the day of loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership, on December 31, 2015, and the amount above shall be increased at the rate of price increase each year, on December 31, 2015, and the Plaintiff shall waive the remainder of the claim, and shall not make any claim to the Defendant except as otherwise provided in this decision after the decision.” It can be acknowledged that the decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’

The final and conclusive decision of recommending reconciliation has the same effect as a judicial compromise (Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, unless there is any ground for invalidation such as the death of a party, the defect can be disputed only by quasi-adjudication unless there is any ground for invalidation.

(Article 461 of the same Act). However, it is clear that the plaintiff disputes the validity of the final and conclusive decision of recommending reconciliation without undergoing a quasi-deliberation procedure by itself, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff shall make a final decision on the recommendation of reconciliation.