1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following modifications or additions. Thus, this case is quoted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The Supreme Court Decision 2013Du25863 Decided March 27, 2014, where the Defendant had been running in an unauthorized building, did not recognize the business loss compensation pursuant to Article 45 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act. On the other hand, in the case of operating in a building which has been altered without permission after lawful construction permission was granted, the above decision cannot be invoked as a matter of determining whether to deny the business loss compensation which was already recognized in accordance with the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act of January 2, 2012. 【Correction or additional matters” of the first instance judgment of the first instance court, which revised the “Plaintiff A” to “Plaintiff,” and “No. 3-1 and No. 2” of the second instance judgment of the first instance court, which added “No. 4-1 and No. 2” to “No. 68 of the first instance judgment of the first instance court,” and the Plaintiff, which had been operating in the building of this case, had followed the following facts.

2. If so, the conclusion of the first instance judgment accepting the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim except for the partial damages for delay is justifiable, and the Defendant’s appeal against this is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.