1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the “attached Form 3” of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows; (b) the “Objection Procedure” of the 5th page 5 shall be as the “attached Table”; and (c) the “Objection Procedure and Administrative Litigation Procedure” shall be as the “Objection Procedure and Administrative Litigation”; and (d) the judgment following the 5th page 9 shall be as to the Defendants of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance

【Additional Opinion: Furthermore, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim of this case before receiving the housing relocation expenses, resettlement funds, and directors’ expenses from the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim of this case. In addition, this case’s claim of this case’s case’s case, and the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (wholly amended by Act No.

According to Articles 2 and 78, a tenant is a related person who has a right to lease a parcel of land acquired or used by a project implementer, and is entitled to receive compensation for expenses incurred in the relocation of a house if the tenant falls under the main sentence of Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act. However, such residential relocation expenses are considered to have the nature of money paid on the social security level for tenants who will suffer special difficulties due to the policy purpose of encouraging the early relocation of tenants residing in the implementation zone of the relevant public works and the relocation of a house. Therefore, the tenant's right to claim compensation for the residential relocation expenses incurred by a public works project legally implemented is the right under public law. Therefore, the lawsuit related to such compensation should be based on an administrative litigation that covers legal relations under public law, not on civil litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8129, May 29, 2008). This legal doctrine is referred to as the pertinent public works project.