1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the reasons for the ruling is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the ruling is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant land and obstacles, requested the Defendant to file an application for adjudication of expropriation on September 28, 2012 on the ground that no compensation agreement has been reached with the Defendant, who is the project implementer, as the owner of the instant land and obstacles. As such, the Defendant, upon receipt of such request, is the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works

() Notwithstanding the fact that a request for adjudication was made to the competent Land Tribunal by November 28, 2012, which is within 60 days from the time of receipt of the request for adjudication pursuant to Article 30(2), the application for adjudication regarding the instant land was filed within the said period, but the application was filed only after the project operator had been filed on April 25, 2013, much more than 60 days, and more than April 25, 2013. Accordingly, Article 30(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (= 20% of the statutory interest rate under Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings x 19,290,00 x 148 days/ 365 days) and Article 19(1) and Article 28(1) of the Defendant Public Works Act, regardless of the landowner’s intent and related person’s interest in the payment of the adjudication, and Article 30(1) of the same Act applies to the Plaintiff.

In the course of the consultation on compensation for damages for the land and obstacles in this case, the Plaintiff Cho Jong-man purchased this case’s land jointly with his father (the Plaintiff’s birth) and the Plaintiff, and on the ground of the purchase, the Plaintiff’s grave in his house.