beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiffs' claims expanded in the trial room, shall be modified as follows.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplement of the judgment as to the plaintiffs' assertion that is especially emphasized or re-emphasized by this court. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article
2. The parts of the trial of the court of first instance, which have been completely used, shall consist of the 8 pages 4 to 8 as follows:
[3] Therefore, with respect to each of the above business losses compensation amounts to KRW 5,042,229 and each of the above business losses compensation amounts to KRW 3,195,29,29, the defendant is liable to pay 5% annual interest per annum from October 6, 2015 to May 26, 2016, which is the date when the judgment of the court of first instance, is rendered, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date when the payment is fully made, with respect to KRW 1,846,935, each of the above business losses compensation amounts to KRW 5,00,000,000 from October 6, 2015, which is the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff after the date when the cause for the payment occurred, to pay 1,846,935% per annum from October 5, 2016 to the day when the application for modification of the claim of this case was served.
Part 9 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted from part 5 of the judgment of the first instance to the following:
3. The supplementary judgment of the plaintiffs, despite the fact that the defendant, at the same place as the plaintiffs, supplied the plaintiffs with the land for livelihood countermeasures to those who have engaged in the business without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, it is discrimination against the plaintiffs' application for the supply of the land for livelihood countermeasures without reasonable grounds, and the disadvantage of the plaintiffs is higher than that of the public interest obtained by not supplying the land for livelihood countermeasures, and thus equal.