(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the objection raised as compensation for suspension of work to be unlawful on the ground that it constitutes closure of business after hearing only some Sis/Guns adjacent to the possibility of transfer of the female breeding farm;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the judgment of the court below was unlawful on the ground that the plaintiff's objection assessed as compensation for suspension of work constitutes abolition of business after examining only some Sis/Guns adjacent to the possibility of transfer of the female breeding farm.

The lower court determined that the instant judgment, which assessed the suspension of work for three months as prescribed in Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, on the following grounds: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (b) the nature of the female raising, the characteristics of the female raising, the Plaintiff’s efforts to continue the female raising business by leasing farmland, and the Plaintiff’s closure of business of other female raising business; and (c) the instant ruling on the objection that assessed the suspension of work for three months as prescribed in Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act as compensation for suspension of work.

According to Article 4(4) of the Special Act on Acquisition of Land for Public Use, Article 2-10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 24(2)1 and 3 of the same Enforcement Rule of the same Act, where the business is unable to be carried on due to the special characteristics of the place of business or the surrounding area, or where it is considerably difficult for the head of a Si/Gun/Gu to transfer the business facility to another place within a Si/Gun/Gu where the place of business is located or adjacent to the area where the place of business is located or where the neighboring area is likely to cause a severe aversion to neighboring residents due to bad odors, etc. due to the special characteristics of the place of business or the surrounding area, the loss shall be assessed by adding the sales loss of fixed assets, raw materials, products, goods, etc. for business use to the operating income corresponding to a certain period according to the type of business. Article 25(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the loss shall be assessed as the ordinary expenses incurred in the transfer of the business facility during the relocation period, but shall not exceed three months.

In order to consider the possibility of the transfer of a fish farm as a discontinuance of business under Article 24 (2) 1 and 3 of the above Enforcement Rule, the adjacent Si/Gun/Gu should consider the possibility of the transfer of another place within the Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant place of business is located or is adjacent. Thus, unless there are other special circumstances, the adjacent Si/Gun/Gu refers to the Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant place of business is located and all Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the administrative district. Thus, the court below should have considered the possibility of transfer of a fish farm farm in other places such as the Si/Gu, Changwon-si, Kim Young-si, Changwon-gun, and Masi-gun, etc. where the relevant place of business is located, and the court below should have deliberated on the possibility of transfer of the fish farm farm only in the case of the Si/Masan-si and the Si/Masan-gun. Therefore, the court below did not examine the possibility of transfer of the fish farm and the compensation for suspension of business in this case as unlawful for three months.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)