1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was operated from March 24, 2009 to the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”). Since the instant land was incorporated into a zone for a district-unit housing redevelopment project, the said business was suspended on September 2, 2015, and the place of business is scheduled to be relocated to the Seoul Southern-gu E-ground building around April 18, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay 33,215,028 won as business compensation to the Plaintiff.

2. Article 77(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects to determine the legitimacy of a lawsuit (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) provides that “The business losses incurred by the discontinuation or suspension of business shall be compensated in consideration of the business profits and expenses incurred in relocating facilities, etc.” (Article 77(4) of the same Act provides that “The detailed calculation and assessment methods of compensation under the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) and the criteria for compensation shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.” Accordingly, the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act provides for the business subject to the compensation for business losses (Article 45), the assessment of losses incurred by the suspension of business (Article

In full view of the above provisions and Articles 26, 28, 30, 34, 50, 61, and 83 through 85 of the Land Compensation Act, in order for a person who closes or suspends his/her business due to a public-service project to receive compensation for business losses from a project operator pursuant to Article 77(1) of the Land Compensation Act, it is reasonable to deem that a person who closes or suspends his/her business due to a public-service project can receive a remedy for infringement of rights pursuant to Articles 83 through 85 of the Land Compensation Act only when he/she objects to the said adjudication after going through the adjudication procedure provided for in Articles 34 and 50 of the Land Compensation Act, and that a person who promptly claims compensation for losses against the project operator without

Supreme Court Decision 200