부동산인도
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. additional determination” as to the assertion that the Defendants emphasized in the trial of the court of first instance, the evidence submitted by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the same is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
2. The defendants to make additional judgments are "real estate of this case" as stated in the separate sheet.
The compensation determined in the adjudication of expropriation is determined in accordance with unfair appraisal procedures, and thus, even if the Plaintiff deposited the compensation determined in the adjudication of expropriation with the Defendants as the depositee, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants deposited the compensation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants completed compensation for losses. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that any illegality or defect exists in the appraisal procedure for the determination of compensation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Furthermore, even if an objection is raised or litigation is instituted against the adjudication of expropriation, the validity of the expropriation by the adjudication cannot be affected (Article 88 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects), and even if the amount of compensation is increased by the project implementer’s deposit of compensation, it cannot be viewed as different solely on the ground thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du4387, Mar. 30, 2017).
Therefore, the defendants' arguments are not accepted.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion.