1. On November 10, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of an adjustment fee against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 10, 2013, the Cheongnam Do governor designated and publicly announced the cadastral resurvey project (hereinafter “instant project”) district (hereinafter “instant project”) district as “the number of parcels B: 2,644, lot size: 2,528,819 square meters, project cost: 40 million won.”

B. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the boundary determination that the land located in the instant project district, which is owned by the Plaintiff, increase the size of 370 square meters in Seosan-si, Seosan-si (hereinafter “instant previous land”) into 370 square meters, according to the resolution of the Seosan-si Boundary Determination Committee.

C. On October 15, 2015, the Seocho-si Cadastral Resurvey Committee deliberated and resolved on matters concerning the calculation of the adjustment amount of land, the area of which has increased or decreased as the instant project. The adjustment amount for the previous land was calculated as KRW 9,154,00 based on the appraised value. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a payment notice of KRW 9,154,000 to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Although the Plaintiff raised an objection, on March 3, 2016, the Defendant deliberated and resolved on the ground that the amount of adjustment originally notified by the Seocho-si Cadastral Resurvey Committee is adequate, and notified the Plaintiff of the rejection of the objection.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that it is unlawful to calculate the adjustment amount based on the site even though the land newly included as a result of the cadastral resurvey survey is a river.

② It is unlawful for the Plaintiff to impose an adjustment payment on newly included land even though it had already been acquired by prescription.

③ The previous land in this case did not change boundary, and as a result of the cadastral resurvey, the public register on this part was entered.