beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) From around 2004, the Plaintiff leased part of the 3,471 square meters of the D Forest and D Forest and E forest and 53,506 square meters of the forest and field E, from around 2004, to the owner, and leased each of the said forests and fields and three lots, including F, etc. (hereinafter “instant forest and field”).
1) The term “the mountain ginseng of this case” means the mountain ginseng of this case
(2) On April 27, 2007, Jeonju City was the operator of H business publicly notified as G by the Ministry of National Defense (hereinafter “instant business”). The forest part of the instant forest was incorporated into the instant business area.
(3) After the project plan of this case was publicly announced, the previous city had been engaged in the procedure for compensating for losses, such as preparation of land and goods protocols, public announcement and notification of a plan for compensating for losses, perusal of the protocol of interested parties and the content of the plan for compensating for losses, consultation with the person subject to compensating for losses, etc. The Plaintiff filed a report of rights and filed an objection at the previous city on July 2017 on the ground that the mountain ginseng was omitted in the above goods protocol. (4) On February 2008, the previous city filed an application for the adjudication to expropriate part of the land subject to the project of this case with the Special Self-Governing Province on the ground that the mountain ginseng was omitted in the above goods protocol.
Accordingly, on May 9, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication on expropriation of the instant mountain ginseng at the time of Jeonju, but the Jeonju did not take any measures to ensure the lapse of 60 days from the date of receipt of the said petition.
5) Around August 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Jeonju-si to the effect that it was unlawful for the Jeonju-si to not file an application for adjudication of expropriation based on the Plaintiff’s above claim. On February 19, 2009, the judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s above claim was rendered (the judgment of the Jeonju-si District Court 2008Guhap1754, supra).