Scope of "Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to Article 24 (2) 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Losses and Damage"

In order to be deemed as a discontinuance of business under Article 24 (2) 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Loss Compensation Act, the possibility of relocation shall be determined by the Si/Gun/Gu in which the relevant place of business is located or adjacent, and the adjacent Si/Gun/Gu refers to the Si/Gun/Gu in which the relevant place of business is located and all Sis/Guns/Gus adjacent to the administrative district, unless there are other special circumstances.

Article 30 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(4) of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 2-10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Loss, Article 24(1), Article 24(2)1, 3, and 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7719 delivered on October 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 2286) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu882 delivered on December 23, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 698)

[Judgment of the court below]

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Doh-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu2806 delivered on January 22, 1997

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. The court below held that since it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff is practically unable or considerably difficult to continue the business of this case to move the business of this case to another place within the area, such as the location of the place of the business of this case, the excessive expenses to be incurred in the relocation of the place of business of this case, and the reflection of residents on the ground of environmental pollution, due to the restriction of the area where the business of this case can be moved, the situation where the business of this case can be moved to another place within the area, such as the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Kimpo-gun, the adjacent area, etc., and therefore, the part where the defendant Land Tribunal paid compensation for suspension of work under Article 25 of the above Rules, in

2. According to Article 30 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(4) of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 2-10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 24(2)1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, and Article 24(2)1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the expropriation of this case, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall make it considerably difficult for the head of a Si/Gun/Gu to transfer his/her place of business to another place within a Si/Gun/Gu where the place of business is located or is adjacent due to the peculiarity of the place of business or the surrounding area to make it difficult for the head of a Si/Gun/Gu to make it difficult to transfer his/her place of business to another place of business

In order to regard the discontinuance of business under Article 24 (2) 1 and 3 of the above Enforcement Rule as the discontinuance of business, the possibility of transfer should be determined by the Si/Gun/Gu in which the relevant place of business is located or adjacent, and the adjacent Si/Gun/Gu refers to the Si/Gun/Gu in which the relevant place of business is located and the Si/Gun/Gu and the administrative district adjacent thereto (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu822 delivered on December 23, 1994).

Therefore, the court below should have considered whether it is possible to move the business of this case to another place within the area, such as the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City where the business place of this case is located and the Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu, Yeonsu-gu, Yeonsu-gu, Si, Seocheon-si, and Seocheon-si, but the court below did not examine the possibility of moving the business of this case only in the case of the Namdong-gu and its adjacent areas, but did not examine the remaining cases of the above Si/Gun. Accordingly, the court below did not review the above and did not examine the possibility of moving the business of this case. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the suspension of suspension of business of this case as to the business of this case as to the business of this case by Defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee's decision on the suspension of business of this case was illegal, and it erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to Article 24 (2) 1 and 3 of the above Rule, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the part of the judgment below against the Defendants, and remand this part of the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)