손실보상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
In the first instance court's judgment, the plaintiff claimed the increase in compensation for the subject matter of expropriation of this case and the increase in compensation for the delayed additional charges. The claim for the increase in compensation for the subject matter of expropriation of this case was partly accepted except for the delay damages, while the claim for the increase in compensation for the delayed additional charges was entirely dismissed. The plaintiff is disputing the claim for the increase in compensation for the delayed additional charges in the first instance court.
The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal do not differ from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial together with the plaintiff's assertion, the first instance court's decision dismissing the part of the plaintiff's claim for the increase of compensation for late payment is justified.
Therefore, the reasoning of this court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the second instance, the 8th through 11th of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the next letter box. Thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
B) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the defendant applied for the second and second expropriation ruling within 60 days from the time when the plaintiff applied for the adjudication of expropriation. However, the defendant applied for the third expropriation ruling after the lapse of the above 60 days. However, in special circumstances where the project operator cannot be deemed to have delayed the application for adjudication even if the project operator did not file an application for adjudication within 60 days after the request for the adjudication was made, additional dues do not accrue during the pertinent period (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du6361, Apr. 7, 2017). Since the defendant's period exceeds the above 60 days was due to the rejection of the first and second expropriation ruling by the local Land Tribunal illegally, it cannot be deemed that the application for adjudication was delayed.