손실보상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 231,60,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from October 21, 2017 to April 17, 2018 against the Plaintiff.
1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the portion not exceeding the "whether any delay, additional dues, is increased according to the increased amount of compensation" in Section 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the following circumstances recognized prior to the increase in the increased amount of compensation, in light of the entry of each evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, which are recognized prior to the increase in additional dues according to the increased amount of compensation, shall be determined based on the "additional dues determined by the competent Land Tribunal". Accordingly, the defendant cannot be held liable to additionally pay the difference between the delayed amount calculated based on the amount of compensation recognized in the lawsuit claiming the increase in the amount of compensation for expropriation and the amount of additional dues recognized in the adjudication on expropriation.
The Plaintiff’s assertion on this premise is without merit. A) The Land Compensation Act provides for land owners and persons concerned (hereinafter “land owners, etc.”) with the Land Compensation Act.
The reason behind granting a claim for adjudication to a project operator is that the project operator may apply for adjudication at any time within one year after the public announcement of project approval (in the case of a redevelopment project, within the implementation period of the redevelopment project), while no landowner, etc. has the right to file an application for adjudication, it is intended to protect the interests of landowners, etc., who are the prompt confirmation of legal relations surrounding the expropriation, and to ensure fairness between the parties to the expropriation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9064, Aug. 27, 1993). In other words, the late additional charges system has significance in ensuring the effectiveness of the claim for adjudication by forcing the project operator not to delay the application for adjudication, thereby ensuring the prompt confirmation of legal relations surrounding the expropriation. Accordingly, the property