(a) The case holding that there is an error of law which does not examine whether transplant could be performed in the calculation of the amount of compensation for the lost trees and the ornamental trees;

(b) The case holding that the court below's decision that it was lawful to determine the compensation amount for suspension of work for three months without examining whether to discontinue the business or the period required for the creation of grassland in compensation for the compensation of dairy industry was erroneous in incomplete hearing or in misapprehension of legal principles;

(a) The case holding that there is an error of law which does not examine whether transplant could be performed in the calculation of the amount of compensation for the lost trees and the ornamental trees;

(b) The case holding that the court below's decision that it was lawful to determine the compensation amount for suspension of work for three months without examining whether to discontinue the business or the period required for the creation of grassland in compensation for the compensation of dairy industry was erroneous in incomplete hearing or in misapprehension of legal principles;

(a)Article 49(3) and Article 50 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(3) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 13(b) of the same Enforcement Decree, Article 4 of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 2(7) of the Enforcement Decree, and

Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 2, Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Si-young, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu966 delivered on April 21, 1989

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Plaintiff 1’s lost numbers, ornamental trees, and dairy farming is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, and all of Plaintiff 1’s remaining appeals and Defendant’s appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against each party.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

In determining the amount of compensation for the land of this case, the court below held that each appraisal of the ○○ Land Appraisal Co-office and △△ Land Appraisal Co-office based on the Defendant’s determination of compensation for the land of this case is unlawful as it goes against Article 46(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29(5) through (3) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4120 of April 1, 1989), Article 29(1) through (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 48(1) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4120 of April 1, 1989), although part of the land of the Mining Group Co-office was recognized as the site, the land of this case was not designated as the standard land for the land of this case.

According to the records, we affirm and affirm the above fact finding and judgment of the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, or misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are groundless.

Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal (1) is examined.

The court below assessed the loss of this case and the possibility of transfer of ○○ Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. by taking into account the type of trees, lifespans, water taxes, profitability, and transfer, and assessed that the transplantable can be performed by taking into account profitability, etc. The △△ Land Appraisal Co., Ltd. comprehensively reviewed all the expenses incurred in relation to the reduction of profit and transplant, taking into account all the circumstances such as the name of trees, flood taxes, profitability, and difficulty of transplantation, and assessed the cost of transplant as transplant. The defendant recognized that the average amount of these two values was determined as the amount of compensation and determined as the lawful amount

According to Articles 49(3) and 50 of the Land Expropriation Act, standing trees, buildings, and other things fixed on the land shall be compensated for removal charges and shall be transferred. When it is considerably difficult to relocate the things or it is impossible to use them for their original purposes due to removal, the owner may request the expropriation of the things. In such cases, compensation shall be made at a reasonable price considering market prices, etc. in the vicinity of the same kind of things. According to Article 57-2 of the same Act, except as provided in the Land Expropriation Act, the provisions of Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land and Compensation for Loss shall apply mutatis mutandis to the methods and standards for calculating compensation amount. Article 4(3) of the same Act provides that the compensation amount shall be determined at a reasonable price in consideration of the transaction prices, costs, profitability, etc. of the buildings, standing trees, and fixtures fixed on the land within the extent determined by the Presidential Decree. Article 2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the compensation amount of the things to be acquired shall be determined at a reasonable price determined at the same time as before the transfer or transplant.

The argument that there was no adequate compensation for the first loss of wood does not claim in the original trial, and according to the records, the loss of the first part of wood seems to have been considered when it is evaluated as a site for stock farm, so it is groundless.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

The lower court was lawful to evaluate the instant dairy industry as compensation for suspension of work for three months as prescribed in Article 25 of the Regulations on Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Loss of Compensation for Loss, on the ground that it does not fall under the abolition of the business as prescribed in Article 24(2) and (1) of the Enforcement Rule of

According to the latter part of Article 4(3) of the Special Act on Land Expropriation for Public Use, Article 2(7) of the same Enforcement Decree, and Article 24 of the same Enforcement Rule, which applies mutatis mutandis to the expropriation of this case under Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, a dairy industry is unable to carry on the business in question by moving the business place to another place within the Si/Gun/Gu where the business place is located or adjacent due to the characteristics of the surrounding area, or where a dairy industry intends to move the business place to another place within the Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant business place is located or adjacent to the Si/Gun/Gu where it is difficult to carry on the business in fact due to the excess of the total amount of the compensation for the existing land or facilities, the expenses incurred before the relocation shall be considered as the discontinuance of the business, and the amount of loss shall be assessed on the basis of the net profit within the period specified in attached Table 1 according to the type of the business, and Article 25(1) and (2) of the same Rule, except for the case of special suspension period.

In the case of dairy farming, a wide area of feed is required, and considerable time and expenses are required for the creation of grassland in light of the empirical rule. According to the records, the situation where a large-scale industrial complex is created can also be known in the first place in the location of the land in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's dairy farming business in this case shall first be determined whether the relevant business cannot be operated, whether the relocation of the land in this case is impossible, or the relocation of the land in another place is beyond the total amount of compensation for the existing land or facilities because it is difficult to continue the existing business because the relocation of the land in this case is beyond the total amount of compensation for the existing land or facilities, and it shall be determined after deliberation of the period of suspension of business after this year.

The court below did not review the above and determined the compensation amount for suspension of work for three months. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the compensation amount for suspension of work for dairy farming, which is not an incomplete hearing, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the compensation amount for suspension of work for dairy farming, and the argument that points this out

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the plaintiff 1's lost number, ornamental number, and dairy farming shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the appeal and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal dismissed are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)