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 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court shall explain concerning this case, is that the "this court" of the first instance court is "the first instance court" of the fifth, fourth, first, first, first, and fourth, second, third, third, third, "abridge" of the fifth, third, "the proviso to Article 23 (1) of the Land Compensation Act" of the seventh and Second, "the proviso to Article 23 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act" of the Land Compensation Act, "the land prior to the incorporation of this case" of the fifth, "the land prior to the division of this case" of the fifth, and "the land prior to the division of this case" of the first, shall be dismissed from the 7th, third, and second, second, second, second, second, second, second, and subsequent, second, second, and added "the addition of second, second," as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in the main sentence of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the Civil Procedure Act.

2. (3) The main text of Article 73(1) of the Land Compensation Act provides for the Defendant’s claim on the compensation of losses and construction expenses incurred by the decline in the price of the remaining land, and the proviso to the compensation under the main sentence provides for the project operator’s right to demand purchase of the remaining land owners recognized as cases where the compensation expenses incurred under the main sentence are larger than the price of the remaining land. In light of the fact that Article 73(5) of the Land Compensation Act provides that Article 70 of the Land Compensation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis only to cases where the remaining land is purchased pursuant to the proviso to paragraph (1). In light of the fact that Article 73(5) of the Land Compensation Act provides that “the standards for calculating the compensation due to the decrease in the price of the remaining land and the standards for calculating the compensation due to the purchase of the remaining land,” the proviso to Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act, which is delegated by Article

In addition, the actual use of the remaining land of this case has not been changed due to the project of this case, and if the remaining land of this case is expropriated due to a small river development project in the future, there is no limitation in public law.