beta
(영문) 서울고등법원(춘천) 2020.02.19 2019누878

손실보상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance is justifiable in its findings of fact and judgment.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the second instance judgment, the second instance judgment’s “B” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant dispute”) “B” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) is amended to “the instant land” and its ground objects, and all of them “instant dispute” (hereinafter referred to as “instant dispute”).

The third-party 13 to 21 of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:

1) The criteria for distinguishing whether the business concerned is deemed a discontinuance of business or a suspension of business under Article 46(2)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act shall depend on whether it is possible to move the business concerned to another place within the location of the business office or within the neighboring Si/Gun/Gu. The determination of the possibility of such transfer shall be made by taking into account the existence of a cause for the relocation of the business concerned, the type and characteristics of the business concerned, the size and characteristics of the business concerned, the status and characteristics of the business facilities concerned, the efforts of the parties concerned to move to another place, and the existence of a cause

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5498 delivered on October 8, 2002, etc.). We examine the instant case 2.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the results of the inquiry inquiry report by the court of first instance, and the purport of the entire arguments, even if comprehensive consideration of the results of the inquiry by the court of first instance and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's farm can not be transferred to another place in the Gangseo-si where the land of this case is located, or to both neighboring Si/Gun, Yangyang-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Pyeongtaek-gun,