(2) The defendant shall pay 111,744 won monthly from March 15, 1968 to July 10, 1970 to Plaintiff 1, and 107,091 won monthly from March 15, 1968 to July 10, 1970 to Plaintiff 2, and 3, etc., respectively.

(3) The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

(5) The total cost of the lawsuit is nine minutes, and one of which is the defendant and the remainder are the costs of the plaintiffs.

(6) Of the text of paragraph (2) above, a full provisional execution can be executed on the part exceeding the amount of the original approval.

If the above claim is groundless, the defendant shall pay 117,50 won monthly from March 15, 1968 to January 31, 1969 to Plaintiff 1, the amount of KRW 146,800 for each month from March 15, 1968 to January 31, 1969, respectively, to Plaintiffs 2 and 3 until the conclusion of the oral argument. From March 15, 1968 to January 31, 1969, KRW 120,625 for each month from March 15, 1968 to January 31, 1969.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The defendant's main claim is a defense that the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed because they did not go through the deliberation of the Compensation Council (1) and they should be dismissed as they did not follow (2) administrative litigation method. Thus, the plaintiffs' main claim is summary, as stated below, to the effect that the defendant uses the land owned by the plaintiffs as a road and claims for damages caused by the defendant's failure to use the land as a road, and as such, the plaintiff's main claim is not a defense of the above defendant, and the above defense is groundless.

2. We examine the plaintiffs' main claims.

(1) On March 15, 1968, the land in the annexed list owned by the plaintiffs, which was determined and announced as a zone of the City Urban Planning on December 8, 1962 by the defendant as a notice of the Construction Division No. 177, the Seoul Station and the Southern-dong as a site for road expansion between the Seoul Station and the Southern-dong, was commenced and used as a road since the completion of the construction, and as a result, the defendant applied for a ruling with the Central Land Expropriation Committee on this land expropriation, the said Committee made a ruling on February 19, 1969 with respect to this land expropriation as of March 31, 1969, but the defendant, a business operator, did not pay or deposit the compensation for the said expropriation until the said expropriation was made, there is no dispute between the parties.

(2) However, the plaintiffs asserted that the above Central Land Expropriation Committee's ruling on the land was invalidated by Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act because the defendant did not pay or deposit the compensation until the above expropriation date. However, the above Central Land Expropriation Committee's ruling on the land became final and conclusive without the parties' objection against the above ruling. In other words, this land shall be accepted as the defendant's ownership as of March 31, 1969, which is the whole expropriation date. Therefore, the defendant shall pay the compensation again as of the date of the conclusion of the oral argument on this case. However, as alleged in the plaintiff's assertion, it cannot be found any ground that the effect of the adjudication on the expropriation remains effective and only the effect of the adjudication on the expropriation remains effective, and in view of the purport of the entire provisions of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act shall be interpreted as the whole land expropriation committee's ruling on this case's land expropriation is invalid by the defendant's entire land expropriation committee's decision on this case's land expropriation.

3. Next, we examine the plaintiffs' preliminary claims.

(1) According to the evidence of evidence Nos. 1-1 through 7 (each copy of the register of land cadastre) and 2-1, 2, and 3 (each copy of each land cadastre) of the attached Table Nos. 1-1 through 8 (each copy of each land cadastre) without dispute over the establishment, it can be recognized that the land No. 65.7 of the attached Table No. 1-8 (No. 9) is owned by Plaintiff No. 1 and that the land No. 65.7 of the attached Table No. 1-8 is owned by Plaintiff No. 2 and 3. The defendant's possession of the land as a road site since March 15, 1968 and that the ruling of expropriation of this land was invalidated. Thus, in order to use the land as a site for the urban planning project, the defendant's obligation to occupy and use the land as a site for which it was decided by the public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and the defendant has no right to use the land before and after this point.

(2) Therefore, according to the appraisal by Nonparty 1 as to the amount of compensation, it is reasonable to presume that the rent from March 1968 to January 1, 1969 for the land owned by Plaintiff 1 as indicated in the [Attachment] List is KRW 1,940 per month, and the rent from March 1968 to January 1, 1969 for the land owned by Plaintiff 2 and 3 as indicated in the [Attachment] List is KRW 1,630 per month, and the rent from March 1, 1968 to January 1, 1969 constitutes KRW 1,630 per month (the appraisal by Nonparty 2 as stated in the above appraisal by the current trial appraiser is not used since there is no specific rent appraisal that is not at the market price, and it is reasonable to presume that the above rent from February 1, 1969 to June 1, 197 x KRW 1,65 x 7.146 x 7.715 x 5 5 x 7.715 x 5 x 16715 x 5 .71.71.6

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is reasonable within the above recognition and it is unfair from time to time. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is without merit. Since the original judgment is modified by the amendment of the plaintiffs' claim in the original judgment, it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 386, 384, 96, 92, 89, and 199 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)