May 30, 2019

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount stated in the separate sheet of compensation in the first instance trial, the amount calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum from September 10, 2016 to October 16, 2018 to the date of delivery of a copy of the claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim, and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from October 16, 2018 to the date of full payment with respect to each amount stated in the separate sheet of compensation in the second instance.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs corresponding to the amount ordered to be additionally paid under the above shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum from the following day to the delivery day of a duplicate of the petition of appeal from October 16, 2018 (2) to the delivery day of a duplicate of the petition of appeal from the following day to the delivery day of a duplicate of the petition of appeal, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

At the first instance court, the Plaintiffs filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of each of the money indicated in the “amount increased” in the attached Table 1 of the first instance court, which is the difference between the “amount of compensation according to the result of appraisal at the court of first instance” and the “amount of compensation recognized in the said judgment,” and the “amount of compensation” in the attached Table of the first instance court, which is the difference between the “amount of compensation according to the result of appraisal at the court of first instance” and the “amount of compensation recognized in the said judgment,” and the “amount of compensation due to the result of appraisal at the court of first instance,” and the “amount of interest” described in the above detailed statement of compensation as interest from June 10, 2014 to April 18, 2016. The court of first instance accepted the entire claim and partly accepted the claim, and dismissed the claim. Accordingly, the scope of adjudication at this court is limited to the above part of the claim by the Plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

In the appeal of the plaintiffs, the reasons alleged in the court of first instance do not differ from the contents claimed by the plaintiffs in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the court of first instance are reviewed together with the allegations by the plaintiffs, the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal as follows. Thus, this Court cites it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The Act No. 11239 of Feb. 1, 2012, on February 1, 2012, 18 of the first instance court decision, “Law No. 11293 of Feb. 1, 2012,” shall be deemed “No. 11293 of the Act.”

6. On the other hand, it is difficult for the project implementer to accept the amended provisions of the articles of incorporation for the purpose of the 20th Urban Improvement Act which stipulate that “No interest rate shall accrue.” Furthermore, the provisions of the 2nd Urban Improvement Act which do not apply to the project implementer under the 4th Amendment of the 2nd Urban Improvement Act by stipulating that “No interest rate shall accrue between the project implementer and its members who did not apply to the 2nd Amendment of the 4th Amendment Act.” On the other hand, if the project implementer does not reach an agreement on the liquidation money, the provisions of the 2nd Amendment of the 4th Amendment Act which stipulate that “No interest rate shall apply to the 4th Amendment of the 7th Amendment Act, and no interest rate shall apply to the 2nd Amendment of the 2nd Amendment Act, and thus, it shall be deemed that there is no need to set the amount of compensation for losses to be paid to the project implementer after the expiration of the 7th Amendment Act, and thus, it shall be deemed that there is no possibility for the project implementer to impose an interest or delayed payment.

3. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kim Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) On October 16, 2018, “the delivery date of a copy of the request for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim” appears to be erroneous.

Note 2) The phrase “ September 10, 2016.” appears to be a clerical error in the petition of appeal.