[1] In a case where an objection was filed against a ruling of acceptance of compensation for suspension of work, which recognized compensation for suspension of work, but only compensation for suspension of work was increased without being admitted from the ruling of an objection, whether such compensation for suspension of work was accepted as a result of the ruling of acceptance (affirmative)

[2] The criteria for determining whether a business is discontinued or suspended in compensation for business losses (=the possibility of transferring the business) and the method of determining the business losses

[3] The case holding that compensation for business losses of a farming machine repair business or a miscellaneous retail business establishment incorporated into the water resources development business area constitutes compensation for suspension of work, not compensation for business closure

[1] Even if a landowner expressed his/her intent to keep an objection at the time of receiving compensation for losses as stipulated in the adjudication of expropriation, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be deemed that he/she received compensation for losses increased in the adjudication, barring special circumstances, unless he/she stated his/her intention to keep an objection, and the fact that the administrative litigation disputing the above increased compensation for losses continues to exist at the time of receiving the above increased compensation for losses cannot be deemed as having expressed his/her intent to keep an objection to the receipt of additional compensation. This legal principle applies to cases where a landowner received compensation for suspension of work recognized as suspension of work without stating his/her intention to keep an objection, even though he/she filed an objection in the adjudication of acceptance of compensation for losses, which did not state his/her intention to receive the increased compensation for losses.

[2] In full view of the provisions of Article 4(4) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 2-10(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Land Expropriation Act, Article 24(1), Article 24(2)1 through 3, Article 25(1), (2), and (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the criteria for distinguishing business losses from whether the business is deemed to be a discontinuance of business or a suspension of business under Article 24(2)1 through 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall depend on whether it is possible to transfer the business to another place within the location of the business or within the neighboring Si/Gun/Gu. The issue of whether the business can be transferred should be determined by taking into account the existence of a cause for the loss of relocation under the Act and subordinate statutes, the type and characteristics of the business, the size and characteristics of the business facilities, the current state of adjacent areas, and the existence of a de facto situation, such as the opposition of the neighboring residents, etc.

[3] The case holding that compensation for business losses of a farming machine repair business or a miscellaneous retail business establishment incorporated in the water resources development business area constitutes compensation for suspension of work, not compensation for business closure

[1] Articles 45(1), 57-2, 61, 75, and 75-2 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, Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss; Articles 2(1)1, 12, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 4(4) of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss; Article 2-10(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss; Article 24(1), 2, 3, Article 25(1), (2), and (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss; Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 4(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss; Article 2(10(2), Article 4(2)2)1)2(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Compensation for Public Loss

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7203 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 193), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7081 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 246) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1342 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 3154), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18573 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2806), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20627 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3414), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu979989 delivered on September 23, 199 (Gong1994, 194) 97Nu9794989 delivered on September 29, 1992)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Yang Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Law Firm Changwon, Attorneys Lee Won-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 99Nu1427 delivered on December 24, 1999

Each appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 1 and 2

Even if a landowner expressed his/her intent to keep an objection at the time of receiving compensation for losses as prescribed in the adjudication of expropriation, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be deemed that he/she received compensation for losses increased in the adjudication of expropriation, barring special circumstances. The fact that the administrative litigation disputing the above increased compensation for losses is in progress at the time of receiving the above increased compensation for losses cannot be deemed as having expressed his/her intention to keep an objection to the receipt of additional compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu18573, Sept. 14, 1993; 93Nu20627, Sept. 15, 1995; 97Nu6834, Mar. 23, 1999). This legal principle applies to cases where a landowner raised an objection to the suspension of compensation for losses without indicating it in the adjudication of expropriation.

In the same purport, the court below citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is reasonable to see that the above plaintiffs received compensation for suspension of work increased before and after the lawsuit of this case and rejected the result of the judgment unless they expressed their intent of reservation in the objection, so long as they did not raise an objection, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiffs' claim of this case against the validity of the judgment of this case is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit, and there is no illegality that affected the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

The remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs are based on the premise that the plaintiffs' claims are of interest in the lawsuit, and thus, they cannot accept all the claims of the plaintiffs in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the remaining plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

In full view of the provisions of Article 4(4) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act"), Article 2-10(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 24(1), (2)1 through 3, and Article 25(1), (2), and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the criteria to distinguish whether the business is deemed a discontinuance of business or as a suspension of business under Article 24(2)1 through 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in compensation for business loss should be determined whether it is possible to transfer the business in question to another place in the location of the business or in the adjacent Si/Gun/Gu area. The issue of whether it is possible to transfer the business in question shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of the cause of the obstructive relocation under the Act and subordinate statutes, the type and characteristics of the business in question, the size and characteristics of the business facilities, the current status and characteristics of adjacent areas, and the actual reason for transfer of the neighboring residents.

The court below acknowledged the following facts with regard to the plaintiffs' claim for cancellation of the judgment of this case, citing the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, based on the ground that the plaintiffs' business establishment should be paid compensation for suspension of work rather than compensation for suspension of work for reasons such as securing of customers and making it difficult for them to obtain permission for suspension of work, and that the plaintiffs' business type is particularly difficult to obtain permission, or it is not possible to operate only within a specific area, but small scale as a general business type, which is not a large scale of business, and that considerable relocation complex created by the defendant Corporation's business establishment is no longer effective in gathering neighboring residents in a broad area, and that the plaintiffs' business establishment cannot be seen as being closed or closed to another adjacent area, even if there is no special circumstance that the plaintiffs' business establishment cannot be seen as being subject to permission for suspension of work.

In comparison with evidence in the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of the legal principles on compensation for closure of business, or violation of the principle of fair compensation under the Constitution.

All of the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are rejected.

3. Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)