All appeals by the Defendant against the Intervenor’s Intervenor BN and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (Withdrawal) are filed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The Defendant’s appeal against the Plaintiff (Withdrawal)’s succeeding Intervenor BN and Q’s succeeding Intervenor BO against the Plaintiff (Withdrawal)’s succeeding Intervenor is for revocation or alteration of the appeal against his disadvantageous judgment in favor of himself. As such, the appeal against the lower judgment in full winning the appeal is not permissible as there is no benefit of filing a final appeal. In this case, even if there is an objection against the reasoning of the judgment, there is no benefit of appeal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da40696 delivered on March 27, 1992, etc.). According to the records, it is evident that the court below dismissed all the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors against the Defendant. Thus, the appeal filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal against the Defendant’s Intervenor (excluding the Plaintiff who withdrawn) and the Intervenor’s Intervenor E and the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) Intervenor H (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as “Plaintiffs”)’s successor.

A. In a case where a project operator bears expenses equivalent to the difference as a result of the project operator supplies a housing site at a low price compared to the general housing site for which relocation measures are provided to a person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter referred to as “resident relocation measures expenses”), the cost of creating a housing site for a person subject to relocation measures, if the cost of creating a housing site for a person subject to relocation measures is included in the relocation measures expenses, would result in unfair results that the person subject to relocation measures should bear the cost of implementing the relocation measures. Thus, the relocation measures expenses should be deducted when calculating

[See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da97406, 2012Da97413, Nov. 14, 2013, etc.] The lower court, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning, deems the relocation countermeasure cost out of the project cost of this case as the housing site for migrants.