손실보상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the third party judgment of the first instance court (“2013 April 29, 2013”; and (b) the Plaintiff’s second party judgment (“2013 April 19, 2013”; and (c) the reasoning for the first instance judgment is the same in addition to the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for the increase of compensation as stated in paragraph (2) below; (d) the court’s “this court” refers to both the “court of the first instance”; (e) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (e) the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) made efforts to ask questions to nearby Si/Gun/Gu, including Asan City where the pertinent place of business is located, in order to carry on the instant business, which constitutes a large-scale mountain breeding business. However, it is inevitable to close the instant business due to the residents’ objection against malodor, environmental pollution, etc., which is not a legal and de facto impossibility of the relocation of the instant place of business. This constitutes a closure of business as prescribed by Article 77 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), Article 46(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 131, Oct. 22, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the former Land Compensation Act”). Thus, the Defendant should pay reasonable compensation to the Plaintiff due to the closure of business, not compensation for business suspension.
(2) The Defendant’s payment of compensation for suspension of work to the Plaintiff is against the principle of equality, even though the Defendant paid compensation for closure to all livestock farmers while running J development projects and K development projects in a similar period to the instant public works in neighboring areas.
B. Whether to grant compensation for business closure (1) is recognized (A).