손실보상재결처분 취소 등
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 court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the first instance as follows, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In addition, the Defendant asserts that: (a) the access road to the instant charging station is not cut off due to the execution of the instant project; (b) so, the said charging station does not fall under “where structures, etc. outside a zone where public works are performed become unable to perform their original functions due to the implementation of public works” as prescribed in Article 62 of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act, and thus cannot be subject to compensation for losses; and (c) the appraisal at the first instance court was conducted by a certified public appraiser, not by a certified public appraiser, and thus, is in violation of Article
However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including paper numbers) and images, the first instance court F, and G, as a result of the execution of the instant business, the entire purport of the argument is as follows: (a) as part of the instant charging station site was accepted by the execution of the instant business, entry of oil tanks, etc. became practically impossible due to a considerable short and a sloping slope between the access road part of the said charging station and the newly established road; (b) accordingly, the plaintiff could not operate the LPG charging business normally at the said place; and (c) the respective descriptions and images of Eul through 34 (including paper numbers) are insufficient to reverse them.
According to the above facts, this constitutes “a case where a structure, etc. outside a zone where public works are performed becomes unable to perform its original functions due to the implementation of public works” under Article 62 of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act, and thus, the defendant’s above assertion (1) cannot be accepted on a different premise.
On the other hand, Article 68 of the Land Compensation Act.