1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of the trial” under paragraph (2) below, and thus, the same shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument of the trial

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) Article 30(1) of the Land Compensation Act provides that a landowner, etc. shall file an application for adjudication in writing with the project implementer. The Defendant does not have any fact that the Plaintiff received a written request for an application for adjudication from the Plaintiff, and there is no obligation to pay additional dues under Article 30(3) of the Land Compensation Act to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff submitted a written withdrawal of application for parcelling-out to the Defendant on July 6, 201, when the management and disposal plan was approved on February 14, 2011 by the Plaintiff who was a member who filed an application for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out. The Defendant received the written withdrawal of

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the liquidation amount to be approved of the above management and disposal plan, and the modification of the management and disposal plan to be the subject of cash settlement was made before June 3, 2014, and the defendant has already paid the liquidation amount (compensation) to the plaintiff before the modification of the above management and disposal plan, so there is no obligation to pay the additional dues due to the delay in payment of the liquidation

Article 30(1) of the Land Compensation Act provides that a landowner, etc. may file a claim for adjudication at the time of failure to reach an agreement on compensation. Since the plaintiff filed a claim for the second application for adjudication without a consultation with the defendant after the first adjudication on expropriation became void, the second application for adjudication is unlawful.

Therefore, the defendant delayed application for adjudication to the plaintiff.