A. The case summary 1) The Plaintiff is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si G 14,839 square meters and H ground houses, and the Defendant is the operator of the general industrial complex development project. (2) The Plaintiff initially filed a claim against the Defendant for the increase of compensation amount, ① KRW 55,632,00, and damages for delay, ② the claim for additional dues due to the invalidation of the first expropriation decision, ② the claim for additional dues due to the invalidation of the first expropriation decision, and the damages for delay.

3) On January 20, 2016, the court of first instance accepted all of the Plaintiff’s claims for the increased amount of compensation, and rendered a judgment ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the increased amount of compensation KRW 301,441,54 (i.e., the increased amount of compensation KRW 55,632,00, additional dues 245,809,544) and the delayed payment damages. (ii) The Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against the part of the claim for late payment in the judgment of first instance, and the court of first instance prior to the remand appealed partially accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 15, 2016, which rendered a judgment ordering the Defendant to additionally pay the delayed amount of KRW 595,015,166 and the delayed payment damages additionally recognized to the Plaintiff.

5. On April 7, 2017, the Supreme Court accepted the Defendant’s appeal and reversed the judgment prior to the remanding, and rendered a judgment remanded to this court, on the grounds that the Defendant calculated additional charges for delay including the period for which additional charges for delay were not incurred in calculating additional charges for delay.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant did not appeal the part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant regarding the claim for the increased amount of compensation, which is the part of the judgment against the Defendant, after remanding the case. Thus, the scope of the trial on the party after remanding the case is limited to the part concerning the delayed

2. Article 8(2) and (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, since the court's explanation of this part of the ruling is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.