Of the lower judgment’s portion on delay damages, the amount of KRW 156,781,670 (156,781,670) against Defendant C shall be from November 23, 201 to December 201.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed)

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and determined that the farmland lease agreement and the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on distribution of agricultural loss compensation did not violate Articles 6(1) and 22 of the Farmland Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the provisions of the Farmland Act and the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Articles 6 (1) and 22 of the Farmland Act, omission of

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4, the lower court: (a) Article 77(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Projects Act”); and (b) Article 48(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that a project implementer shall compensate the actual farmer, not farmland owners, for the amount of farming losses incurred to the farmland, if the farmland owner is not a farmer residing in the relevant region; however, such provision only regulates the relationship between the project implementer and the amount of farming losses compensation and does not regulate the judicial relationship between the third party; and (b) does not regulate the specific use of farming losses compensation expenses by prohibiting the transfer and seizure of the amount of farming losses compensation, and thus, the actual farmer may freely dispose of the farming compensation expenses; and (c) even if an agreement is concluded that the actual farmer shall pay part of the farming compensation expenses received by the project implementer to a third party, such as farmland owners, barring special circumstances, the agreement is contrary