1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Jeonnam-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Subjective and preliminary co-litigations of this Court are the form of litigation in which all co-litigants settle the dispute between themselves with respect to the same legal relationship in a lump sum without contradiction, and a judgment shall be rendered on the claims against all co-litigants.

(2) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, if an appeal against one of the co-litigants is filed in a subjective or preliminary co-litigation, the confirmation of the part of the claim against other co-litigants shall be prevented, and the appeal shall be made in the appellate trial, and in such a case, the object of the appeal shall be determined in consideration of the need for the confirmation of the conclusion between the primary

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da75202 Decided March 20, 2015, etc.). In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the adjudication on expropriation of the instant land to Defendant Jeonnam-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee, and, first, sought an increase in compensation on the premise that the instant adjudication on expropriation is valid with respect to Defendant Jeonnam-do Nanyang-gun. Such form of lawsuit constitutes an conjunctive co-litigation by the Defendant under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where part of the co-litigants’ claims against other co-litigants are legally incompatible with that against other co-litigants.

The first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim and accepted the conjunctive claim.

The plaintiff appealed only for the primary claim, but in this case, it is necessary to make a joint decision with the conclusion. Accordingly, according to the plaintiff's appeal, the part of the conjunctive defendant Choyang-do's conjunctive defendant Choyang-do was prevented, and it was transferred to the appellate court and became subject to the judgment of this court.

2. The case of this Court citing the judgment of the court of first instance.