국가보상금지급
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts
A. On August 22, 2009, the Defendant publicly announced a plan for compensating for losses due to the implementation of the C Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”).
(hereinafter “instant public announcement”). On November 17, 201, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the amount of farming compensation and the amount of compensation for the obstacles to the fish farm (hereinafter “instant fish farm”) operated on the Chungcheongnam-Nam D’s ground (hereinafter “instant land”).
Therefore, on November 22, 2011, the Plaintiff received agricultural loss compensation amounting to KRW 10,084,610, and KRW 37,070,00 for obstacles compensation (hereinafter “instant obstacles compensation”).
B. From October 2010 to December 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for payment of compensation for the closure of the instant fish farm. Accordingly, the Defendant sent a reply that it is impossible to compensate because it did not report inland fisheries on the fish farm at the time of the public announcement of the public announcement of the instant business.
On the other hand, the plaintiff did not go through an adjudication procedure by the Land Tribunal under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation for Fishing Right Compensation for the Closure of Fishing Grounds.
【Reasons for Recognition】 The entries of Evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. According to the appraisal report on the fish farm in this case’s appraisal report, the public notice of this case includes business loss compensation for fish farms based on Article 47 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act”), and accordingly there is separate appraisal report which evaluates business loss compensation for the fish farm in this case.
(It is also true in light of the fact that the plaintiff was prevented from finding the appraiser in question and trying to verify it).