1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant 2,90,000 won against the plaintiff A, 28,742,460 won against the plaintiff B, and 11,826.

1. In the first instance court, with respect to each claim filed by Plaintiffs B, C, E, F, and G, each of the obstacles owned by Plaintiffs B, B, E, F, and G, and each of the sectional sections owned by Plaintiffs A and D, the Plaintiffs sought additional compensation corresponding to the difference between the due compensation according to the court’s appraisal and the compensation amount due to the increase in compensation for losses (hereinafter “increased compensation”) and the delayed additional charges referred to in Article 30(3) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works following the increase in compensation for losses (hereinafter “additional additional charges”), and damages for delay on each of the above amounts (hereinafter “additional compensation”). The first instance court accepted each claim filed by Plaintiffs A, B, C, and F, and rejected the remainder of the claims by citing some of increased compensation for losses and additional charges and damages for delay as well as each of the above amounts.

The plaintiffs did not appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant does not appeal against the increased compensation for losses and damages for delay. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claims for additional delay charges and damages for delay against the defendant in the judgment of first instance.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The reasons why Article 30(3) of the Plaintiffs’ Claim for Land Compensation Act recognizes the project implementer’s obligation to pay late-payment additional charges is the landowner and person concerned (hereinafter “land owner, etc.”).

This economic delay is the delay in the implementation of the project by allowing this project operator to urge prompt progress of the project.