June 21, 2018

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

With respect to KRW 847,530,824 and KRW 201,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum from July 28, 2017 to August 17, 2017; KRW 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and KRW 646,530,824 per annum from the delivery date of the copy of the application for modification of the purport of this case to the date of full payment.

A. Business outline and the status of the plaintiff and the defendant

- Project name: Housing redevelopment project in Gyeyang-si [The Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project in the Area adjacent to Howon Elementary School](5)(hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”);

- Project operator: Defendant

- On May 29, 2012, the Defendant obtained authorization to establish an association from the Ansan market (hereinafter “instant project implementation authorization”), and publicly announced the application for parcelling-out for the instant project to the members of the association for the instant project, with the period for filing the application for parcelling-out as follows: (a) the public announcement of the project implementation authorization at Ansan-si on June 2, 2015; (b) the notification at Ansan-si on July 21, 2015; and (c) the period for filing the application for parcelling-out as “from July 27, 2015 to September 4, 2015”; and (d) the Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out within the said period for filing the application for parcelling-out.

(b) Adjudication on expropriation on June 12, 2017 by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal;

- Commencement date of expropriation: July 27, 2017

- Subject to expropriation: The real estate listed in the attached Table 1 List of Real Estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

- Compensation for losses: 4,735,761,240 won (see attached Table 2)

- An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation and a light appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisals on expropriation”) and the appraisal result (hereinafter referred to as “appraisals on expropriation”)

C. Results of appraiser ○○○○’s appraisal on April 6, 2018 (hereinafter “court appraisal results”).

- Court appraisal results: 5,059,763,390 won (see Attached Table 2)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 4, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

(a) Claim for compensation for losses;

As to the instant real estate, the compensation for losses should be calculated according to the court’s appraisal result, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 324,002,150, which is the difference between the court’s appraisal result and the appraisal result, and damages for delay.

(b) Claim for additional dues;

The Plaintiff became a cash liquidation agent because it did not apply for the initial application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out (from July 27, 2015 to September 4, 2015), and sent a written application for adjudication to the Defendant on three occasions on February 25, 2016, March 4, 2016, and March 14, 2016, but all of the written application for adjudication was returned due to the Defendant’s refusal to receive. The Plaintiff’s written application for adjudication filed on February 26, 2016, which was in an objective state where the Defendant was aware of the details of the notification on March 2, 2016, which was 60 days after the date of refusal to receive the above written application for adjudication, and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff additional dues x 365% x 275 x 365 x 275 x 364 x 275 x 265 x 375 x 275 x 275 x 545 x / 27 / 546

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Table 3 (Related Acts and subordinate statutes)

4. Determination

A. Determination on claims for increase in compensation for losses

1) In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, in case where each appraisal and each appraisal and each court appraiser, which form the basis of the adjudication on expropriation, have no illegality in the method of appraisal, and there is no reason to believe that there is an error in the result of appraisal due to a somewhat different relation between the appraisal and the comparison, even though there is a mutual opinion in view of the factors of the price situation other than the comparison of goods and others, reliance on any one of the appraisal and assessment belongs to the court’s discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du2129, Mar. 26, 2009, etc.).

2) The court’s appraisal result is deemed to have no illegality in calculating the compensation for the instant real estate lawfully based on the officially announced value of comparative standard land as prescribed by relevant statutes, such as the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”). As such, the court’s appraisal result is deemed to have no illegality in calculating the compensation for the Plaintiff’s legitimate compensation

3) The reasonable compensation for losses for the instant real estate is identical to the amount indicated in the “court appraisal result” column in the attached Table 2, and the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 324,002,150, which is the money indicated in the “personal amount” column in the attached Table 2, which is the difference between the above amount and the amount indicated in the “written adjudication on expropriation” column in the attached Table 2.

B. Determination on the claim for late payment penalty

1) Relevant provisions

Article 47(1)1 of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 13508, Sep. 1, 2015) provides that Article 47(1)1 of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where a project implementer fails to apply for parcelling-out or a person excluded from objects of parcelling-out in accordance with a management and disposal plan approved pursuant to Article 48 shall liquidate land, buildings, or other rights in cash according to procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree within 90 days from the date following the date the management and disposal plan is approved, and the main sentence of Article 40(1) of the former Urban Improvement Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases of expropriation or use of the ownership and other rights of land or buildings for implementing a rearrangement project within an improvement zone, except as otherwise expressly provided

In addition, Article 30 of the Land Compensation Act provides that when an agreement is not reached after a public announcement of project approval, a landowner and a person concerned may request a project operator to file an application for adjudication in writing, as prescribed by Presidential Decree (paragraph (1)); when a project operator receives a request under paragraph (1), he/she shall file an application for adjudication with the competent Land Tribunal within 60 days from the date he/she receives such request (main sentence of paragraph (2)), as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and when a project operator files an application for adjudication after the expiration of the period under paragraph (2), he/she shall pay an amount calculated by applying the statutory interest rate under Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings for the delayed period in addition to the compensation adjudicated by the competent

Therefore, in principle, the owner of land, etc. subject to settlement in cash pursuant to Article 47 of the former Act may request the project implementer to apply for the adjudication of expropriation if the consultation fails to reach an agreement within the period of cash settlement. If the project implementer fails to apply for the adjudication of expropriation within 60 days from the date of receiving such request for the adjudication of expropriation, the project implementer shall pay additional charges for the delayed period in accordance with Article 30

On the other hand, where a landowner intends to file an application for adjudication pursuant to Article 30 of the Land Compensation Act, he/she shall submit to the project operator a written application for adjudication stating the name or title of the project operator, type and name of the public works, name or title of the landowner and person concerned, name or title of the landowner and person concerned, location, lot number, land category and area of the land concerned, type, structure and quantity of the goods on the land, reasons for failure to reach an agreement, etc. pursuant to Article 14(1)

2) Determination

A declaration of intention made by the other party is effective when the other party reaches the other party (Article 111(1) of the Civil Act). Here, the arrival refers to the case where the other party is in an objective state where the other party is aware of the content of the notification (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da19973, Jun. 12, 2008).

In full view of the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 7 and 8 (including the serial number) and the entire pleadings, the law firm justice of the defendant on February 25, 2016 shall be deemed to be "non-party 1," and the "person who is accepted" shall be deemed to be "non-party 2," and the "written application for adjudication on the rejection of payment" on March 2, 2016. The law firm justice shall be deemed to be "non-party 1, as the representative of law firm," and the defendant shall be deemed to have refused to send the written application for adjudication to the defendant on behalf of the non-party 1, stating "the non-party 2, the non-party 1, who was named as "the non-party 2, who was the head of the housing redevelopment project association adjacent to the original elementary school," and each of the "the plaintiff 2, who was sent the written request to the defendant on behalf of the non-party 1, who shall be defined as "the non-party 2, who was sent 3," as "the plaintiff 2," respectively.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, insofar as the law firm sent each item of this case without indicating the name of the plaintiff or the justice of the law firm on the surface of each item of this case without indicating that the mail of this case is the plaintiff's representative, as long as the defendant did not know that each item of this case pertains to the plaintiff's claim for adjudication on the real estate of this case, it is difficult to view that the mail of this case was in an objective state recognizable by social norms to the defendant that the defendant was the notification of the plaintiff's claim for adjudication on the real estate of this case. On the contrary, there was no evidence to support that the defendant knew that there was the plaintiff's claim for adjudication on the real estate of this case at the time when the mail of this case was rejected and returned to the defendant, or that the law firm justice was aware of the fact that the plaintiff's claim for adjudication on the real estate of this case was filed with the plaintiff's request for adjudication on the real estate of this case. Accordingly, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's expression of intent was reached

5. Conclusion

Therefore, as to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 324,02,150 as compensation for losses and KRW 201,00,000 as claimed in the complaint, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at a rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 28, 2017, which is the day following the date of the commencement of expropriation. As to the remainder of KRW 123,002,150 as claimed by the Plaintiff by expanding the claim in the application form for alteration of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of KRW 123,02,150 as to the existence and scope of the obligation of each Defendant from April 17, 2018, which is the day following the delivery date of the application form for alteration of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Dud Jin Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)