1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff B's conjunctive claim added at the trial is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for the addition under Paragraph 2 below to the determination of the plaintiffs’ assertion and the plaintiff’s conjunctive claim in the trial, and thus, the reasoning for the first instance judgment is identical to that for the instant case. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article

2. Additional determination

A. Plaintiff A’s assertion 1) As the wife P made a temporary relocation report to the same place of residence as his child for the benefit of medical expenses, etc. during hospital treatment from around 2000 to vertbrops, Plaintiff A made a temporary relocation report for the benefit of medical expenses, etc. As such, Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects constitutes “where the Plaintiff is unable to reside due to illness, conscription, enlistment due to conscription, public duty, school attendance, or other inevitable reasons corresponding thereto,” and Article 78(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc.”) provides that a project operator shall establish and implement relocation measures for those who are deprived of their base of livelihood due to the provision of residential building due to the implementation of public work projects. Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree provides for the establishment and implementation of relocation measures according to delegation of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, which does not fall under the proviso of Article 2.