손실보상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the distance of operation increased by the change of the route due to the instant construction work, and that the additional oil cost is equivalent to KRW 100,612,325, the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiff as a business loss.
However, as seen earlier, the partial alteration of the two service routes of the passenger ships operated by the Plaintiff due to the occurrence of the area where the instant construction work was in contact with, is subject to the application of the Public Works Act by analogy, or is not subject to business compensation as stipulated in Article 64 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act.
In addition, the result of the appraisal commission for appraiser A of a party court is based on the service route level provided by the plaintiff and the separation table, and the previous service route is 23.3 miles and the changed service route is 26.4 miles, and there is no objective evidence to support it. Thus, the above appraisal commission result calculated based on the aforementioned e-mail table cannot be easily believed, and there is no evidence to conclude that the difference belongs to the loss subject to compensation.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion of losses of additional oil costs is without merit.
3. As such, all of the claims extended by this court and the plaintiff's appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.