1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the first instance is consistent with Paragraph 2, which states that it is necessary to add or supplement the grounds of the judgment of the first instance among the matters alleged by the plaintiff as the grounds of appeal and the claims raised by the first instance court among those raised by the plaintiff as the grounds of appeal in the first instance court. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, except for the revision of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article

A written judgment of the first instance court (based on recognition) shall add “B No. 5” to the item “(based on recognition)” of the third part of the written judgment of the first instance, and 1-D of the second part of the written judgment of the first instance.

The Plaintiff deposited KRW 11,722,50 as the deposit officer of Jeju District Court from September 25, 2013 with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit, and KRW 111,722,50 as the deposit officer of Jeju District Court from February 4, 2014 to KRW 151 as the deposit officer of Jeju District Court from February 4, 2014. The Plaintiff reserved an objection on October 24, 2013 and paid the former deposit money, and then paid the latter deposit money, and the latter deposit amount was written “L” in Section 4 of the first instance judgment from the first instance court, “K” and the latter is recorded “M, N andO” in the first instance judgment from September 11.

2. Additional and Supplementary statements

A. As to illegality of the instant expropriation ruling, the Plaintiff unilaterally expropriated the instant land without any objective verification as to the need for an improvement project of areas zone to manage areas to manage areas to manage areas to manage areas to cope with natural disasters, while the Defendant, without good cause, designated and publicly notified the instant land as designated areas to be natural green areas as areas to manage areas to manage areas to cope with natural disasters. The Plaintiff, who is the owner of more than half of 11,935 square meters of the total area to be expropriated, did not give an opportunity to submit opinions under the Public Works Act, and did not notify the result of prior disaster impact assessment pursuant to