1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Scope of the trial of the political party after remand;

A. A. A summary of the case is 1) The Plaintiff is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si G, H and I land, and the Defendant is the operator of a general industrial complex development project in C. 2) The Plaintiff initially filed a claim against the original Defendant, ① KRW 35,092,00 with the claim for the increase of compensation amount, ② the claim for additional dues due to the invalidation of the first expropriation ruling, ② the claim for additional dues due to the invalidation of the first expropriation ruling, and the delay damages therefrom.

3) On May 24, 2016, the court of first instance accepted all of the Plaintiff’s claims for the increase in the amount of compensation, and rendered a judgment ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the increased amount of KRW 121,565,868 (i.e., increased amount of KRW 35,092,00, additional dues of KRW 86,473,868) and damages for delay. (ii) The Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against the claim for additional dues among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to additionally pay the late amount of KRW 179,163,929, and additional damages for delay. (iii) On December 20, 2016, the court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal partially, and the Defendant rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to additionally pay the late amount of KRW 1

5. On April 7, 2017, the Supreme Court accepted the Defendant’s appeal and reversed the judgment prior to the remanding, and rendered a judgment remanded to this court, on the grounds that the Defendant calculated additional charges for delay including the period for which additional charges for delay were not incurred in calculating additional charges for delay.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant did not appeal the part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant regarding the claim for the increased amount of compensation, which is the part of the judgment against the Defendant, after remanding the case. Thus, the scope of the trial on the party after remanding the case is limited to the part concerning the delayed

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the ruling are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are applied.