1. A landowner who has failed to apply for a parcelling-out after the authorization for the implementation of a redevelopment project is granted under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents shall lose his/her membership in the redevelopment project association and become a person subject to cash settlement. In such cases, if the project implementer fails to reach an agreement, the landowner may file an application for adjudication with the project implementer pursuant to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) which is applied mutatis mutandis under Article 65(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”). Upon receipt of such request, the project implementer shall file an application for adjudication with the competent Land Tribunal within 60 days from the date of receipt of the request (Article 30(2) of the Land Compensation Act). If the project implementer has filed an application for adjudication after the expiration of the delayed period, the additional dues, which are the amount calculated by applying the statutory interest rate under Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

Any project operator who is dissatisfied with the above adjudication rendered by the competent Land Tribunal may file an administrative litigation (Article 85(1) of the Land Compensation Act), but where the administrative litigation instituted by the project operator is dismissed, dismissed, or withdrawn, the amount calculated by applying the statutory interest rate under Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings to the period from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the written adjudication to the date of adjudication or withdrawal shall be paid in addition to "compensation" (Article 87(1)

2. A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts.

1) On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs, who were landowners, filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the competent local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

2) The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Local Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to accept the delayed payment under Article 30(3) of the Land Compensation Act in addition to the adjudication compensation.

3) After receiving the authentic copy of the written adjudication on expropriation on December 24, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim for reduction of compensation for delay additional charges, but the dismissal judgment became final and conclusive (Supreme Court Decision 2016Du46274 Decided October 27, 2016).

B. Based on such factual basis, the lower court determined that the “compensation” under Article 87 of the Land Compensation Act includes additional charges for delay under Article 30(3) of the Land Compensation Act, and that there was a duty to pay additional charges calculated by applying the statutory rate under Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings for the Period from the day when the original written ruling was received to the day when the judgment was rendered.

1) Article 85(1) of the Land Compensation Act only provides that a project operator may file an administrative suit when he/she is dissatisfied with an adjudication rendered by the competent Land Tribunal. Thus, it shall be interpreted that the content of the adjudication is not only a case where the adjudication is a compensation for adjudication, but also a case where the amount of delay is an additional charge under Article 30(3) of the Land Compensation Act

2) The purport of Article 87 of the Land Compensation Act is to prevent abuse of administrative litigation with a view to delaying the payment of compensation by a project operator, to preserve the landowner’s damages during the period for which the compensation is not received, thereby promoting equity between the project operator and the landowner. There is no reasonable ground for different treatment of adjudication compensation and late payment charges.

3. Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional dues under Articles 30 and 87 of the Land Compensation Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)