1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Article 387 (2) of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the initial date of payment of delay damages through the statement of grounds for appeal submitted to this court, and the defendant's delay liability for delay damages shall be deemed to have occurred from March 4, 2014, following the date on which the plaintiffs claimed compensation for damages to the defendant.

In addition to the assertion that “the facts received on March 3, 2014, stating the expression of intent of the plaintiffs to claim compensation for losses on the same day,” the same part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (from the second to the eighth (the eighth (8th)), so the corresponding part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the corresponding part shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part to be used by the court shall be less than the tenth (1

The key point of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the shape of the remaining land in this case has changed to an irregular form, etc., the efficiency of its use has been diminished, and the site conditions have deteriorated, such as the passage of the remaining land due to the motorway in this case, etc. due to the difficulty of entering and leaving the national expressway in the front of the remaining land, and the environmental conditions have been inferior due to the occurrence of automobile noise, and the price of the remaining land in this case has

Therefore, the defendant should compensate for the plaintiffs' losses caused by the price decline in the remaining land of this case.

The price of the remaining land of the defendant can not be considered to have decreased.

Since the motorway of this case was established through a public-private partnership project under the Act on Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure (hereinafter “Private Partnership Act”), the defendant is not a project operator, and thus the defendant is not a project operator.