1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, was followed in Section 27 of Section 4 among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. In addition, “On the other hand, the plaintiff purchased 301 square meters of G forest land and H forest land and 11,922 square meters of forest land incorporated into the industrial complex of this case prior to the disposition of this case, but it was not possible to complete the registration of transfer of ownership due to the lack of land transaction permission.” The plaintiff added “including “..” The same shall apply hereinafter after the 5th judgment,” and the judgment of this court as to the defense of safety, which was raised by the intervenor of this case,

In addition, as described in the paragraph, the following Section 2 shall be added, and after the entry in Part 7, "the point of call," in Part 18.

After adding the contents stated in paragraph 7, 12 Du10178, April 11, 2013, and the Supreme Court Decision 2012Du4616, July 24, 2014, 2014, “the result” listed in Section 7, 12, 101 through 103, 101 through 103, 19, 28 through 37, i.e., “the records” listed in Section 12, i.e., “No. 13,” and “No. 11” listed in Section 2-C, i.e., “No., No. 5” from “No. 13,” respectively.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the written claim, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Additional or height parts

A. On April 22, 2014, the Defendant Intervenor asserted to the effect that: (a) around November 18, 2014, on the instant land, there was a ruling of expropriation by the Chungcheongbuk-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee on the land of 301 square meters of G forest land and H 11,922 square meters of forest land; (b) the Defendant Intervenor deposited each of the compensation for losses; and (c) the date of expropriation of each of the above land was set on the date of expropriation; (d) each of the above land was owned by the Defendant Intervenor; and accordingly, (e) the Plaintiff was no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition.

Modern, B or 22.