2...

Accordingly, the plaintiff only appealed against the part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the plaintiff's claim for compensation due to the price decline of the remaining land.

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case as stated in paragraph (3). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this 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.

3. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of “paragraph 2(c)(2)” in the part of the judgment of first instance provides that “where the price of the remaining land is reduced or other losses are incurred due to the acquisition or use of part of a group of land belonging to the same owner, or where construction of a passage, ditch, fence, etc. or other construction works are necessary, the project operator shall compensate for such losses or construction expenses, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.”

Accordingly, Article 32 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act provides that "if the price of the remaining land is reduced due to the acquisition of a part of a group of land belonging to the same owner, the loss of the remaining land shall be the value of the remaining land before being transferred to the public works execution zone, due to the incorporation of the land into the public works execution zone.