1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

The reasoning for this case is as follows, except for the part of the judgment of the court of first instance to be modified or the part of the judgment of the court of first instance to be determined additionally as to the defendant's assertion, and thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] Part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: Part 9, 13, and 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

In full view of the following circumstances recognized in light of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that additional charges for delay under Article 30(3) of the Land Compensation Act should be calculated on the basis of “compensation determined by the competent Land Tribunal.” Therefore, the plaintiffs’ assertion that differs from this premise is without merit. A) The Land Compensation Act provides that landowners and persons concerned (hereinafter “owners, etc.”) shall be deemed to have no ground.

The reason why the right to request a ruling is granted to a project operator is to protect the interests of landowners, etc. who have no right to request a ruling at any time within one year after the public announcement of project approval (in the case of a redevelopment project, within the implementation period of the redevelopment project), while no landowner, etc. has the right to request a ruling, thereby protecting the interests of landowners, etc. who have prompt confirmation of legal relations surrounding the expropriation and ensuring fairness between the parties to the expropriation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9064, Aug. 27, 1993). In other words, the late additional payment system has its significance in ensuring the effectiveness of the right to request a ruling by forcing the project operator not to delay the application for a ruling, thereby ensuring the prompt confirmation of legal relations surrounding the expropriation, and its purpose or character differs from the compensation system for losses incurred due to the loss of property rights due to the expropriation. (b) The delay in additional payment as prescribed in Article 30 of the Land Compensation Act