The judgment below

Among them, the part on the plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors except the plaintiff CO and CP is reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff except the Plaintiff CO and the CP

A. Article 78(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 201; hereinafter “former Public Works Act”) provides that “A project operator shall either establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement funds as prescribed by Presidential Decree for persons who are deprived of their base of livelihood due to the provision of residential buildings (hereinafter “persons subject to relocation measures”) due to the implementation of public works, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 40(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23425, Dec. 28, 2011; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act”) provides that “No person who wishes to move to a resettlement area among those subject to relocation measures shall obtain permission or file a report on relocation measures pursuant to the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or the Housing Act (including cases where a project operator supplies housing sites or houses to those subject to relocation measures)” and Article 10(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act provides that “No 16.