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 reasons why the cited party of the judgment of the court of first instance states concerning the instant case are the same as the reasons stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following judgments, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that (i) the Plaintiff did not pay the resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and movable property transfer expenses, etc. other than compensation for losses; and (ii) the objectivity of assessment is not guaranteed, such as the amount of compensation for losses set by the ruling of expropriation is too low.

B. Article 78(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) provides that a project implementer shall either establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement funds, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, to a person who would lose his/her base of livelihood due to the provision of a residential building due to the implementation of a public project. However, the relocation expenses recognized pursuant to Article 78(5) of the same Act and Articles 54(1) and 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act are the amount of money paid on the social security level for the owners, etc. of a residential building, etc. who will suffer special difficulties due to the implementation of the project by encouraging the early relocation of the owners, etc. who reside in the relevant zone where the public project is implemented, and thus, a claim for compensation for relocation expenses by the owners, etc. of a residential building, etc. who have been relocated due to the public project legally implemented, is the right under public law, and thus, the lawsuit surrounding such compensation should be subject to an administrative litigation, not the civil procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da.