1. The Defendant’s KRW 75,276,373 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 13, 2018 to October 31, 2019, and the following.

1. Case history

A. The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (hereinafter “instant road”) on August 26, 2009

3) A public announcement was made on the determination of road zones with the content of the construction work (hereinafter “instant project”).

(Public notice of the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs C, hereinafter “public notice of this case”).

The Plaintiff owned a 12,954 square meters of D forest land (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”). However, as the instant road passes through the said land, the said land was divided into D forest land 2,934 square meters, E forest land 5,722 square meters, and F forest land 4,298 square meters (hereinafter “F forest”) and among them, E forest land 5,722 square meters was completed due to the agreement on the acquisition of public land.

C. On April 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for adjudication seeking compensation for the construction cost of passage on the remaining land pursuant to Article 73 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”).

On November 9, 2017, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling that “the Defendant shall accept the remaining land of this case and compensate for losses at KRW 168,696,50” on the ground that the Defendant filed a claim for purchase of the remaining land pursuant to the proviso to Article 73(1) of the Public Works Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant acceptance ruling”). E.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the purport that the Plaintiff would request the adjudication on the cost of establishing a passage, since it did not request the expropriation of the remaining land of this case.

F. On January 25, 2018, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that the Defendant’s failure to deposit the compensation for losses due to the instant expropriation ruling became effective pursuant to Article 42 of the Public Works Act.