1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. At the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought an increase in compensation for expropriation of the instant land and goods and additional charges for delay following the Defendant’s delayed application for adjudication. The court of first instance accepted the increased portion of compensation, and dismissed the claim for additional charges.

The scope of the court's appeal is limited to the claim of the late payment penalty.

2. The plaintiff's assertion as to the part concerning the claim for late payment in the court of first instance while filing an appeal does not differ significantly from the allegations in the court of first instance. According to the legal principles cited by the court of first instance, the decision of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's assertion as to late payment in the court of first instance is recognized as legitimate (if the plaintiff maintains the same conclusion as the court of first instance, the project operator may escape from the liability for additional payment by filing an application for adjudication again within 60 days from the date on which the decision on expropriation became invalidated, even if the adjudication on expropriation becomes invalidated, and as a result, the project operator may extend the period of implementation without imposing additional payment liability even if his/her decision on expropriation becomes invalidated due to reasons attributable to him/her, it is unreasonable that the plaintiff's claim for late payment in the court of first instance should be accepted. However, apart from Article 30 (3) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, as long as Article 42 (2) of the same Act provides for compensation for losses suffered by the landowner, etc.