1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

The reasoning for this case is as follows, except for the modification of a part of the judgment of the court of first instance with respect to counterclaims in the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, it is quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] Part of the first instance trial judgment "A defendant" in Part 3 of Part 11 as "the defendant".

The written judgment of the first instance court shall be as shown in the following box, from 18th to 18th to 18th to 18th to 18th to 18.

The Plaintiffs asserts that, since the project implementation period stipulated at the time of approving the project implementation plan under Article 40(3) of the former Act refers to the date of public notice prior to the date of public notice, the additional charges for delay shall continue to occur until the date of public notice prior to January 31, 2014.

However, the term “the period of project implementation determined at the time of authorization of the project implementation plan” under Article 40(3) of the former Act is distinguishable from the phrase “the date of notification of relocation” under Articles 49(6), 54(2), 56(1) and (3), 57(1), and 58(3) of the former Act, “the date of notification of relocation”, etc.

Considering that the project implementation period determined at the time of authorization of the project implementation plan as alleged by the Plaintiffs refers to the prior public notice date, the project implementer of the rearrangement project under the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents may apply for adjudication of expropriation at any time despite the expiration of the project implementation period, which does not comply with the purpose of Article 40(3) of the former Act that limits the time of

Therefore, unlike the language and text, the term “project implementation period determined when the project implementation plan is approved” cannot be interpreted as the date of relocation announcement.

In the reference document submitted after the date of closing the argument in this case, the Plaintiffs provided that the landowner’s request for the remaining accommodation by the date of completion of the relevant project under Article 74(1) of the Land Compensation Act.