The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,620,000 as well as to the plaintiff on April 15, 2018.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for the additional compensation for losses and delay compensation for the Plaintiff’s land, and ② the late payment of additional compensation for losses and delay compensation pursuant to Article 30(3) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), respectively. The first instance court accepted the claim partially, and ② dismissed the claim.

Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court shall be limited to the claims ①.

2. The reasoning for this part of the ruling is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 14 to 3 lines), except for the reasons for appeal as follows. Thus, this part of the ruling 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.

3. The phrase “E land” of the 3rd line “(hereinafter referred to as “E”) is called “E land,” and the phrase “in combination with the said D land is called “each land.”

3 The appraisal result of this Court appraiser J (hereinafter referred to as the "the appraisal result of this case") is as follows: (d) the appraisal result of the first instance court appraiser J (hereinafter referred to as the "the above appraiser," and the results of the appraisal are as follows: (c) the appraisal result of the first instance court appraiser J (hereinafter referred to as the "court appraiser," and the court appraiser's appraisal.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The part of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “a de facto private road” under Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act.

Nevertheless, the instant expropriation ruling and its appraisal were assessed on the premise that the instant road is de facto private roads, and the individual factors of the D land were not fully reflected.

Therefore, the defendant's judgment of this case is based on the court's appraisal amount (in the case of E land, the appraisal amount premised on the premise that the road part of this case does not fall under the actual private road).