2. A. A. On December 21, 200, the part of the rejection of the Plaintiff’s objection by the Central Land Expropriation Committee against the Plaintiff on December 21, 200, equivalent to KRW 7,581,79, among the parts that the Plaintiff dismissed.

B. Defendant Suwon-si shall pay to the Plaintiff 7,581,79 won with 5% interest per annum from October 21, 2000 to August 29, 2003, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, 70% shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 30% shall be borne by the Defendants.

5. The provisions of paragraph 2(b) may be provisionally executed.

The part equivalent to KRW 28,250,000, among the parts dismissing the Plaintiff’s objection in the judgment of objection made against the Plaintiff on December 21, 2000 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee”) shall be revoked. Defendant Suwon-si shall pay to the Plaintiff 28,250,000 won per annum from August 5, 199 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case and 5% per annum from the next day to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date (the Plaintiff extended its claim to the point of appeal).

(a) Authorization and announcement of implementation plans;

-A project for installing urban planning facilities (1-6 lanes as the case may be) (the project for improving three-lanes);

- Public notice of authorization of implementation plan on August 16, 199 (No. 1999-103) and notice of authorization of implementation plan on January 24, 200 (No. 2000-7)

(b) Enterpriser: Defendant Suwon;

(c) Adjudication on expropriation by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on September 26, 2000

- Subject: Obstructions owned by the plaintiff on the ground, such as Suwon-si Sejong-dong 841-3

- Timing of expropriation: October 20, 200

-Compensation for loss: 19,115,000 won in total, including compensation for suspension of work for two months for the Car Center;

D. Adjudgment on December 14, 2000 on the part of the defendant Jung-gu.

- Contents of adjudication: Increase in total amount of compensation to 36,395,000 won, including compensation for suspension of work for a period of two months for the Ka Center and compensation for suspension of work for a period of three months for the Vice Director;

- An appraisal corporation: A future appraisal corporation and a new appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “instant objection appraisal”)

【Ground of Recognition】 5, A 7-1, 2, 1, 18, 19

2. Whether the judgment on the objection of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, in paying compensation for suspension of work, the amount of compensation is not only equivalent to the suspension of work but also the amount calculated by adding the fixed expenses such as personnel expenses for the suspension of work. In the case of the plaintiff, the fixed expenses are up to 28,250,000 won. The appraisal of the objection of this case did not evaluate the fixed expenses as the compensation amount. Accordingly, the ruling of this case was also omitted from the compensation amount. Thus, the ruling of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Enforcement Regulations of Public Compensation for Loss

Article 25 (Appraisal of Loss in Suspension, etc. of Business) (1) The loss of business that relocates the place of business shall be appraised by adding the fixed expenses, such as personnel expenses, etc. during the period of suspension of business, business facilities, raw materials, products, goods, etc. to the amount equivalent to the amount of loss incurred in the transfer of goods, etc., and other goods, etc.: Provided, That where the project operator compensates for the temporary retirement under subparagraph 1 of Article 30-3, the amount equivalent

(2) The period of business suspension due to the relocation of the place of business under paragraph (1) shall be within three months except in special cases.

(3) Where it is impossible to continue the relevant business without newly installing or repairing the remaining facilities due to the convenience of part of business facilities in a public project, the amount shall be appraised by adding the ordinary expenses required for the installation, etc. of the relevant facilities to the business profits during the period required for the installation, etc. of the relevant facilities within the extent of

C. Determination

(i) Interpretation of relevant laws and regulations;

According to Article 25 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Losses and Compensation for Losses, the business that moves the place of business shall compensate for fixed expenses, such as personnel expenses during the period of suspension of business. Although Article 25 (3) of the Enforcement Rule does not explicitly stipulate that the business is unable to continue the business without newly installing or repairing the business facilities, the compensation for fixed expenses, such as personnel expenses during the period of suspension of business, shall not be made in the above case, but in the above case, it does not mean that the above compensation for fixed expenses is prohibited, and there is no reason to see different cases from the case of the business that moves the place of business, and in view of the fact that the compensation for fixed expenses during the period of suspension of business is consistent with the principle of adequate compensation regardless of the relocation of the place of business, it is reasonable to compensate for the fixed expenses, such as personnel expenses, etc. during the period of suspension of business (the compensation evaluation guidelines established by the Korea Appraisal Association shall also be prescribed as above).

Shed Fixed Expense Amount

㈎ 비용지급의무

In full view of the purport of arguments as to Gap evidence 5, 8, Gap evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 13-2, Eul evidence 1, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, and 26, witness exchange, settlement of accounts, testimony of the court of first instance to the witness use of the court of first instance, the future appraisal corporation of the court of first instance and the court of this court, and the fact that the plaintiff rent 2.5 million won to the employees of Suwon-si 841-3, Suwon-dong 8,500 won for monthly rent of 2.5 billion won for the above 4th, while it was difficult for the plaintiff to use the above 1/4 of the site due to the expropriation of the case, and that the 2th, 3th,000 won for the above 4th, while it was difficult for the plaintiff to use the new 4th, the new 4th, 3th, while it was found that the 2nd, new 3th,0000 won for the above 3rd.

Thus, in the end, two months for the car center business and three months for the car center business, the fixed expenses should be additionally compensated for the period of three months.

㈏ 인건비

First of all, personnel expenses are equivalent to temporary closure allowances, and if there is no data on the criteria for the evaluation thereof, they shall be reasonably assessed after calculating the amount of compensation after considering all the circumstances such as the type, size and contents of the relevant business, the number of workers, the details of the business, the changes in the number of workers during a certain period of time, and the period of suspension of business (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du851, Mar. 23, 2001). In this case, only the personnel expenses that the plaintiff spent during the business period are revealed, and the amount of compensation for the temporary closure allowances that the plaintiff spent during the temporary closure period is not specified. However, in light of the nature and scale of the business, it is not necessary to employ the regular worker who should pay money equivalent to the temporary closure allowances even during the temporary closure period of business. On the other hand, it is reasonable to 20% of the amount of compensation for the temporary closure allowance of the car center as well as the amount of compensation for the temporary closure allowance of the employees of this case.

Therefore, all personnel expenses equivalent to fixed costs are 3,039,99 won [2,533,333 won (3.8 million won in the above recognition of monthly remuneration for the employees other than part-time employees ± 3.8 million won in the above recognition of monthly remuneration for the employees other than part-time employees ± 3 x 2) x 60% x February x 2 months, while the plaintiff asserts that monthly remuneration of the maintenance team leader is 2.2 million won in the maintenance team and the monthly remuneration of the maintenance engineer 1.7 million won in the maintenance team, including his monthly remuneration, but it is difficult to recognize the above assertion in light of the fact that the total monthly remuneration of the employees of the car center's business sector, as above, exceeds 4,80,000 won in the maintenance center's business sector's personnel expenses).

㈐ 임대료

On the other hand, monthly rent for the 3rd Director and the 1/3th of the site shall be compensated for fixed costs, and 2/3 of the site shall be used for the 3rd Deputy Use, the 2/3th of the site as the car center site, and 1/4 of the rent is accepted, and the rent to be calculated as fixed costs is 4,375,00 won as follows.

- Monthly rent after expropriation: 2.5 million won 】 3/4 = 1,875,00 won

- Monthly rent for the part of the Sejong Deputy Site: 1,875,000 won ¡¿ 1/3 = 625,000 won

- Total compensation rent: 1,875,000 won ¡¿ 2 + 625,00 won = 4,375,000 won

㈑ 전기요금

Basic fees = 83,400 won per month 】 2(monthly) = 166,800 won (after the closure of the suspension period of the Academy, the total basic fees shall be excluded from the compensation).

㈒ 기타 비용

The plaintiff sought payment of telephone charges, expendable expenses, advertising expenses, equipment repair expenses, etc., but the above expenses are difficult to be considered as fixed costs to be paid during the period of suspension of business, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

㈓ 고정적 비용 합계 : 7,581,799원

【Court Decision】

If so, all fixed costs subject to compensation are KRW 7,581,79, and the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's rejection of the plaintiff's objection against the plaintiff on December 21, 200 shall be revoked as it is unlawful. Accordingly, the defendant Suwon-si has the obligation to pay the plaintiff the above money and the compensation for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from October 21, 2000 to August 29, 2003, which is the day following the date of acceptance, to the day of full payment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the above recognition scope and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the plaintiff, which falls under the above cited part of the judgment of the court of first instance, is unfair as it is so unfair, and thus, it shall be revoked as above, and it shall be dismissed as the plaintiff's appeal and its remainder shall be dismissed as the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Judge Lee Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)