According to the records, it can be recognized that the plaintiff AO died on or around August 11, 2008, prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, this part of the lawsuit filed in the above plaintiff's name, which is the deceased, is unlawful.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on capacity of parties, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the lawsuit in this case, and thereby dismissing the above Plaintiff’s claim.

2. The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by the defendant).

With respect to the scope of a person subject to the relocation measures that the Defendant is obliged to install basic facilities, (1) Article 23 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 8376 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 78(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter the “former Public Works Act”), Article 40(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722 of Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter the “former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”), the project operator is deemed to have been subject to the relocation measures under Article 3 of the Addenda of the former Act on Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Act on Compensation for Loss under the former Public Works Act.