1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that "Land Compensation Act" in the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is "Land Compensation Act", "Adjudication" in the 19th part "Article 12 to 14", and "the above claimant's assertion per se constitutes a claim for removal of disturbance or unjust enrichment based on ownership under the Civil Act rather than a claim for compensation under the River Act, and this cannot be claimed as an administrative litigation, since the plaintiff's assertion itself constitutes a claim for removal of unjust enrichment based on ownership under the Civil Act". "Where land is incorporated into a river area, the land owner may consult with the river management agency as prescribed by the River Act, and if the consultation is not reached or it is impossible to reach an agreement with the competent Land Tribunal, and it cannot be claimed against the directly river management agency for civil litigation, and since the land is incorporated into a river area, the owner shall not be deemed as having been subject to a claim for return of unjust enrichment as stated in the first part of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the evidence submitted by the court of first instance."