1. As to KRW 90,372,479 among the Plaintiff and KRW 70,145,850 among them, the Defendant shall start from October 21, 2017 to July 19, 2018.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: B housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Location and size: approximately 58,367.4 square meters in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”): The public announcement as to the maintenance and improvement plan - The defendant - the project operator: the public announcement as to the improvement and improvement plan of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 31, 2008 - the public announcement as to the designation and improvement plan for D B housing redevelopment and rearrangement zone (draft): the public announcement as Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 15, 201

B. The adjudication of expropriation rendered by the local Land Tribunal on August 25, 2017 - The person subject to expropriation was assessed as 218 square meters in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (However, the actual use status was 205 square meters, and 13 square meters in a road, which is owned by the Plaintiff. The adjudication also evaluated the actual use status as the same in this case. The adjudication also assessed the actual use status as above; hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”). However, the adjudication of expropriation was made on all obstacles, such as the above land and the above ground buildings owned by the Plaintiff, but the obstacles at the time when the expert who conducted the court’s appraisal conducted the on-site investigation were already destroyed and excluded from the evaluation. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff withdrawn the claim for the increase of compensation for obstacles through the application for the change of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim, it is necessary

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that additional dues for delay under Article 30 (3) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor should be increased according to the increased compensation in the complaint of this case.

However, additional charges for delay under the above provision are only paid in addition to the "compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal" and cannot be deemed to have been paid in addition to the increased compensation (Supreme Court Decision 2018Du58790 Decided January 17, 2019).