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

A. The reasons are as follows: (a) the court’s reasoning with respect to the instant case is as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, except for the portion to be determined additionally in Section B below; (b) and (c) thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Parts in height

(1) Forms 4 and 20 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

Article 77 of the Public Works Act and Article 45 of the Enforcement Rule thereof [Article 45 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 556 of Apr. 12, 2007)] provides that Article 45 of the Enforcement Rule after the amendment shall be applied from the portion where the project operator publicly announces the compensation plan and notifies the landowner and related persons of the compensation plan. According to the evidence No. 2, the public announcement date of the compensation plan of this case shall be March 28, 2006, and the compensation plan of this case shall be deemed to have been notified at that time. Thus, in order to be subject to compensation for business loss, it shall be determined in accordance with Article 45 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act before and after the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 556 of Apr. 12, 2007).

Shebly, from 9th to 5th of the 8th judgment of the first instance court is as follows.

The Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 556 of April 12, 2007)

Article 45 (Business Subject to Compensation for Business Losses)

The business which is liable to compensate for any loss of business under Article 77 (1) of the Act, shall be the business falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. A business which continues to be operated for profit with human and physical facilities at a specific place prior to the date of the project approval, etc.;

2. Where it is necessary to grant permission, license, report, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "permission, etc.") pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the course of conducting business, a business conducting such business in accordance with the permission, etc.

Article 46 (Appraisal of Losses Incurred in Discontinuance of Business)

(1) A business loss in the event that a business is discontinued due to the implementation of public works shall be appraised by the amount calculated by adding the sales loss amount of fixed assets, raw materials, products, goods, etc. for business use to the operating profit for two years (in cases of personal business, referring to the income;

(2) The discontinuance of business under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall mean the cases falling under any one of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where it is impossible to carry on the business concerned in the course of moving the business place or a hinterland (referring to the area where the customer of the business concerned is located; hereinafter the same shall apply) to another place within the Si/Gun/Gu or a neighboring Si/Gun/Gu where the business place concerned is located;

2. Where permission, etc. for the relevant business cannot be obtained from another Si/Gun/Gu or from another place within the area of a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant business office is located.

3. "Cases where the head of a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to the head of an autonomous Gu) recognizes that it is substantially difficult to move a business facility that causes a severe malodor, such as a slaughterhouse, etc. to a neighboring resident, to another place in the area of a Si/Gun/Gu or a neighboring Si/Gun/Gu in which the relevant business establishment is located".

C. Additional determination

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that, if the Defendants properly conducted the safety inspection of the amusement facilities (hereinafter “the amusement facilities”) subject to safety inspection, the Plaintiff would naturally obtain permission prior to the instant expropriation ruling, and that the above amusement facilities were operated as they were without permission. ② The Defendants’ failure to properly conduct the safety inspection falls under intentional or negligent illegal act; ③ the Defendants’ illegal act committed by the Defendants, which led to the Defendants’ failure to obtain permission on the above amusement facilities, did not compensate the Plaintiff for business loss on the ground that there was no permission on the above amusement facilities.

In administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency, the administrative agency must name the public opinion that is the object of trust to an individual, the administrative agency's name of opinion is justifiable and trusted to the individual, and there is no cause attributable to the individual. The individual should have trusted the opinion, and have engaged in any act corresponding thereto. The administrative agency's disposition contrary to the opinion's name should result in an infringement on the interests of the individual who trusted the opinion's name. When taking an administrative disposition in accordance with the above opinion's name, the administrative disposition should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du1512, Nov. 8, 2002, etc.).

Since there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants committed an illegal act because they failed to conduct safety inspection on the above amusement facilities by intention or negligence, they are responsible to the Plaintiff without obtaining lawful permission, etc. for the above amusement facilities.

Moreover, there is no evidence that the Defendants issued a public opinion that is the subject of trust to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, premised on the Defendants’ public opinion statement against the Plaintiff.

Belgium, the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff conduct the entrusted management of the above amusement facilities, which is not prohibited by Article 11 of the Tourism Promotion Act and Article 20 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Rule thereof, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above amusement facilities should be compensated for business loss.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s lease of the above amusement facility from the Hangnland Co., Ltd. to the present time without obtaining permission under its own name. This cannot be viewed as a consignment management, and rather, it is an other person’s management prohibited under Article 11 of the Tourism Promotion Act and Article 20 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Rule thereof. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

Abstract, the plaintiff asserts that it is difficult to transfer the plaintiff's machine to another place within three months, so it is short of compensation for suspension of work for three months and compensation for suspension of work for two years.

However, there is no evidence to find it difficult to transfer the business portion by the machine that is not subject to safety inspection to another place, except for the business portion by the machine that is not subject to safety inspection. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)