The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) concerning the agreement to distribute the compensation for farming loss.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, where a project operator is unable to continue farming due to the acquisition or use of farmland which is not self-arable farmland due to the necessity of public works, the court below held that compensation for losses would be the purpose of preserving income for livelihood support during the period of farmland preparation. The provisions of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) recognize the distribution of compensation for losses to the owner of farmland and the actual farmer only when the owner of farmland resides in the relevant area. Even if a person who leases and cultivates farmland waives his/her future compensation for losses, it would be more beneficial to continue the lease relationship even if the owner of farmland reached an agreement to divide compensation for losses for farming, at the request of the owner of farmland, if such agreement becomes effective, the owner of farmland will lease the farmland only to the person who consented to the distribution of compensation for losses, and thus, the purport of compensation for losses arising from agricultural abolition of farming is likely to disappear, and thus, the provisions of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects shall be deemed null and void.