토지인도
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the following 2. Additional Judgment as to the assertion added by the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the defendant's assertion is as follows: (a) in case where the project operator compensates for any obstacle that may be the cause of the project implementation at the price of the article that does not meet the actual expenses incurred prior to the project implementation pursuant to the proviso of Article 75 (1) 2 of the Land Compensation Act; (b) it is difficult to deem the project operator to acquire the ownership of the article only by compensating for such obstacle; (c) on the other hand, the project operator may not demand the owner of the obstacle to remove it and deliver the land, and may remove it at his/her own expense unless there are special circumstances. In such a case, it is reasonable to deem that the owner of the obstacle is in the position to remove the obstacle and lose the value of the article generated in the process. Further, the project operator has the authority and burden to remove it at his/her own expense for the obstacle located in the project implementation district (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da277419, Apr. 11, 2019).
B. In light of the above Supreme Court precedents cited by the Defendant, the owner of obstacles is in the position to remove obstacles and lose the value of goods generated in the process, and the above precedents are actively conducted by the project implementer.