The judgment below

Of the plaintiffs, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff B, D, F, L, X, Z, AF, and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. In full view of the structure and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes such as Article 21(2) and Article 23 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 8376 of Apr. 11, 2007), Article 78(1) and the main text of Article 78(4) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”), Article 40(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722 of Feb. 29, 2008), and the policy need to prevent speculative transactions in relation to the implementation of the public works under the Urban Development Act, the statutory basic date for relocation measures that falls under “the date on which a person subject to relocation measures for the public project is subject to installation of facilities under Article 7 of the former Urban Development Act and Article 78(3) and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act shall only be deemed as the public project operator’s.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da14672, Jul. 23, 2015). Meanwhile, Articles 1, 2 subparag. 2, and 3(2) of the former Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal (amended by Act No. 8786, Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter “Urban Renewal Act”), Article 2 of the Addenda to the Urban Renewal Act (amended by Act No. 8786, Dec. 30, 2005) are the purpose and content of the relevant provisions.