2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(a) Approval and announcement of development plans;

- Housing site development projects (housing site development projects in a mining concession district: 3rd> projects; hereinafter “instant projects”);

- Notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 2005-532 on December 30, 2005

B. Project operator: Defendants

(c) Adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on September 27, 2007;

- Subject to relocation: Ground trees, performance stage, flagpoles and other ancillary facilities, etc. on the ground in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Suwon-gu (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”).

-Compensation for losses: 83,960,000 won [including 18,00,000 won for business compensation for machines which are not subject to safety inspection (politicals, sludges, diapers, earbooks, earbooks, softs)];

- Commencement date of expropriation: November 15, 2007

(d) Ruling by the Central Land Tribunal on June 19, 208;

- The content of adjudication: The request for compensation for the business shall be dismissed from among the claims for compensation for the business and increase in the cost of transfer shall be increased to KRW 88,905,000 [including KRW 19,80,000 for the business compensation for the machine which is not subject to the safety inspection [including the politics, scar, ear-to-scar, ear-to-scar, ear-to-scar, kn

- An appraisal corporation: B&D appraisal corporation and F/L appraisal corporation (hereinafter “adjudication appraiser”) and the results of appraisal are “adjudication appraisal”.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole argument

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff leased various amusement facilities and snow sledding rooms and field learning centers, etc. installed on the instant land from the Kginland Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant amusement facility business”) and had them regularly undergo safety inspections, inspection of legal violations, etc. after completing business registration as of November 1, 2001, and has been doing business up to now. As such, business compensation should be made pursuant to Article 77 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”).

(2) Furthermore, in the case of the instant amusement facility business, the area to be transferred pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations must be designated as the amusement facility district. However, it cannot be transferred due to the absence of the aforementioned area designated as the said district in Suwon-si or the neighboring area of Suwon-si, the location of which is located, and since it is impossible to obtain permission for the pertinent business even if it is transferred, it constitutes the requirements for business closure compensation as stipulated in Article 46(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On April 18, 1990, Kginland Co., Ltd. had installed and operated amusement facility business with the permission of amusement facility business under the Tourism Promotion Act on a lot of land in the instant case. After having completed a report under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act on January 5, 199, it installed and operated a snow sled store.

(2) On August 22, 2001, the Plaintiff leased and operated machines, snow sled, sled, and various auxiliary facilities from the Sourceland Co., Ltd. to the present day.

(3) According to the statement of the permit for the amusement facility business and the report of the sports facility business in the name of the originalland Co., Ltd. (the representative Nonparty 1), only the general amusement facility business was granted on May 17, 2003 in the name of the originalland Co., Ltd. and the report of the sledding room business was filed on January 5, 199, and the permission for the amusement facility business or the report of the change of the sledding room was not made

[Ground of recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 5, and 6-1, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) According to Article 77 of the Public Works Act and Article 45 of the Enforcement Rule thereof, in order to constitute a business subject to compensation for a business loss, a person shall meet all the requirements of “business that has a human and material facility and continues to be operated in a legitimate place prior to the date of project approval” and “where permission, license, report, etc. (hereinafter “permission, etc.”) is required under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the course of conducting business, a person shall meet all the requirements of “business conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions with permission

(2) The instant amusement facility business and sledding business part

In full view of the provisions of Articles 3(1)6, 5(2), 11, and 33 of the former Tourism Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008), and Articles 2(1)5(b) and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff’s business compensation seeking for operation. Pursuant to the following, the Plaintiff’s night car, balking, etc., are game facilities or machines subject to safety inspection, and are equipped with such facilities, etc., and are required to operate amusement facility business, they shall obtain permission from the Mayor, etc., and shall not allow others to operate the facility business. In full view of the provisions of Articles 10, 11, and 22 of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 5636 of Jan. 18, 199; hereinafter “sports facility Act”), the person who intends to operate a sledding room is required to report to the Mayor/Do Governor.

However, ① A person who obtained permission from the competent administrative agency with respect to the instant amusement facility business is not the Plaintiff, but the sourceland, and the amusement facility business subject to safety inspection, other than the part of the business that the Plaintiff received business compensation, is not a part of the business that the Plaintiff could operate by leasing it without permission from the competent administrative agency. Thus, in carrying out the business, this part of the business cannot be deemed as a business subject to compensation for operating losses, and therefore, this part of the business cannot be deemed as a business subject to the pertinent administrative agency. ② The sledding business of this case was reported only to the competent administrative agency, and since the Plaintiff did not report to the competent administrative agency or revised the above reported matters, the sled sled business of the Plaintiff constitutes a business subject to compensation for operating losses. Thus, the above sled business of the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a business subject to the pertinent administrative agency, since it was necessary to report under related Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, this part of the business cannot be deemed as a business subject to the said report.

(3) Part of a scenic event and recreation

In full view of all the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the appraiser's appraisal results, and the purport of the whole pleadings, etc., the plaintiff's implementation of a sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sed sled sled sled sed sled sed sled sled sed sled sed sled sed sed sed sed s

(4) Whether the business is subject to compensation, etc.

As seen earlier, among the instant amusement facility businesses conducted by the Plaintiff, all of the instant amusement facility businesses do not fall under the business subject to safety inspection other than those by machines which are not subject to safety inspection, and the business sector by amusement facilities or machines which are not subject to safety inspection can be operated by installing the relevant business facilities and reporting them to the competent administrative agency, and it cannot be seen as a case where the pertinent Si/Gun/Gu or its neighboring Si/Gun/Gu can be moved to another place. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant business is subject to safety inspection is also without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the increase of compensation on the ground that all of the businesses of this case is subject to compensation for closure of business, is without merit, and it is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges lower-class (Presiding Judge)