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 reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance are as follows: “The period of business suspension under the Land Compensation Act” means the period expected to normally be required until the date of business operation prior to the date of business operation under the Land Compensation Act and the date of commencing the relocation of business facilities if the business operation is discontinued and the relocation of the business facilities is commenced. As such, the period in which the relocation of the existing business facilities subject to relocation is not the period required for the relocation itself, but for the construction of a new business building or the construction of a new business facility, which is not the procedure related to the authorization and permission or the relocation of the previous business facilities subject to relocation, shall not be considered in calculating the period of business suspension.” This is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the judgment on the plaintiff’s argument as set forth below, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Supplementary Provisions] The Plaintiff asserts that Article 47(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act (amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act”) should apply, not the Enforcement Rule of the former Land Compensation Act, since the date of the instant adjudication on expropriation was December 8, 2016 and the date of expropriation was January 31, 2017.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 6-1 and 2, since the notice of the compensation plan for the instant project zone was made on or around February 29, 2008, Article 47(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act shall apply to the assessment of losses caused by the instant project pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.