1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to pay to the plaintiff B below.

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 7th of the first instance court's 7th of the 16th of the 19th court's decision and the 16th of the 9th of the

1) The additional charges for delay under Article 30(3) of the Land Compensation Act have the nature of the statutory damages for delay on the compensation for expropriation. Therefore, the objection to such additional charges is reasonable in accordance with the procedure of objection to the compensation for expropriation. Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act provides that "the amount to be additionally paid under Article 30(3) of the Act shall be stated in the written ruling by the competent Land Tribunal, and the project operator shall pay it together with the compensation by the commencement date of expropriation or use," and the additional charges for delay shall be determined by the adjudication of expropriation along with the compensation for expropriation. Therefore, the objection to the additional charges shall be based on the lawsuit on the increase of the compensation for expropriation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da31175, Oct. 24, 1997). In addition, inasmuch as a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation for adjudication was brought within the period for filing a lawsuit, additional charges for delay may be filed without being distorted in the period for filing a lawsuit under Article 85 of the Land Compensation Act, through amendments to the purport of the claim

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du9457, Dec. 27, 2012). In a case where a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation is brought within the period for filing a lawsuit, specifying that a part of the claim is a claim within the period for filing a lawsuit under Article 85(1) of the Land Compensation Act, the Plaintiff, even after the period for filing a lawsuit exceeds the period for filing a lawsuit, may not only expand the purport of the claim, but also file a separate lawsuit corresponding to the expanded part until

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 11. 11.