1. On January 11, 2018, the Defendant rendered a ruling on the use of real estate listed in the attached Table 1, as against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of ruling;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant forest”). The instant forest is a preserved state forest under Article 16(1)1 of the State Forest Administration and Management Act (hereinafter “State Forest Act”).

B. The Korea Rail Network Authority (hereinafter referred to as “project implementer”) prepared a railroad construction project implementation plan pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Railroad Construction Act and approved by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) in order to implement a project for construction of Daegu (Dong Daegu-Ycheon) (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”), and the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced it on March 24, 201 under Article 9(4) of the same Act by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

C. The project implementer consulted with the Plaintiff for the use of the forest of this case incorporated into the instant project, but did not reach an agreement on the grounds of objection to the establishment of State property rights, etc., and filed an application for a ruling on use with the Defendant.

On January 11, 2018, the Defendant rendered a ruling that “The project implementer shall use the instant forest for the instant project, and the amount of compensation for losses shall be KRW 3,964,450. The starting date of the use shall be February 28, 2018, and the period of use shall be from the starting date of the use to the continuation of the facilities.”

(hereinafter “instant adjudication”). E.

On August 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant judgment with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s objection.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the ruling of this case is lawful

A. In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, Article 11 of the State Property Act, Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 17 and 21 of the State Forest Act, private rights to the instant forest, which is a preserved state forest, may not be established, except for each year with permission for use.