2012Guhap1264 Compensation, etc.

1. Red○○ (******************))

Kim Jong-si

2. Former○○ (*********************))

Kim Jong-si

3. ○○○ (********************))

Kim Jong-si

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

1. Korea;

Legal representative, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice

Law Firm Apex, Attorneys Dondoi-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant

2. Gyeongnam-do.

Representative Do Governor Do Governor Do Governor Do Governor Do Governor Do Governor Do Governor

Attorney Kim Jae-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

September 13, 2012

November 8, 2012

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay 255,452,00 won to Plaintiff Hong○○, 144,278,000 won to Plaintiff Lee○○○, and 231,076,000 won to Plaintiff Jeon○○, and each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case until the day of service of a copy of the application for extension of claim of this case and modification of the cause of claim of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in Kimhae-si*, Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○* in the same face ****, Plaintiff Hong○ in the same face ○○○○○**-* in the same side *-*-*.

B. On November 29, 2010, the first place of remedy was spreading across the country (11 Cities/Dos and 75 Sis/Guns). On January 23, 2011, both of which are operated by the Plaintiffs were generated to ○○○○-si, ○○○○○○○○, where both sides operated by the Plaintiffs were located.

C. On January 27, 201, based on Article 20 of the former Act on the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases, the Defendants issued to Plaintiff Hong○○ on January 27, 201, swine 1,241ma of pigs 1,241, January 30, 201, and 31, issued an order for slaughter of 3,396ma of pigs to Plaintiff Hong○○○, and buried all the said pigs (hereinafter “instant slaughter”).

D. In calculating the compensation for the Plaintiffs, the Defendants calculated and applied each upper limit line (hereinafter referred to as “instant upper limit line”) using the method of calculating the upper limit line of compensation, such as the attached Table 2, with respect to spawn money, well-grounded money, self-founded money, fostering money, maternity money, and money.

E. The Defendants deposited KRW 691,723,00 in the sum of KRW 31,136,00 on February 1, 201, KRW 178,130,00 on July 5, 2011, KRW 691,723,00 on October 26, 201, KRW 565,094,00 on February 16, 201, and KRW 260,391,00 on July 5, 201, KRW 139,161,00 on the aggregate of KRW 139,100,00 on July 26, 201, KRW 30,00 on the Plaintiff’s total of KRW 139,161,00 on the compensation money, KRW 130,00 on the Plaintiff’s ○, 201, KRW 137,015,00 on the compensation money.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 3, 6 evidence, Eul 1, Eul 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Table 1 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

3. Determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In accordance with Articles 20 and 48 of the former Act on the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases (amended by Act No. 11348, Feb. 22, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 11 attached Table 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23038, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), and attached Table 1 of the Decree on the Payment of Compensation for former Livestock, etc. (Notice of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries No. 2010-25, hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines for Payment"), the Defendants shall compensate the Plaintiffs at the price on the date of slaughter, despite the fact that the Defendants shall compensate the Plaintiffs at the price on which they were slaughtered, the Defendant shall calculate the amount of compensation in excess of the average price of the preceding year (30% of the average price on January 1, 201 through December 31, 2020).

B. Determination

1) The following circumstances, namely, Article 11(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases, which provides that “The criteria and methods for evaluating livestock, etc. according to the standards for the payment of compensation, standards for calculating the appraised value by type of livestock, and other detailed matters concerning the evaluation of livestock, etc., shall be determined and publicly notified by the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.” According to Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Guidelines for the Payment of this case, it is only the method of calculating the upper limit of the appraised value.” Article 6(1) of the Decree provides that “The compensation for livestock, etc. shall be the average of the appraised value separately by the members of the evaluation team commissioned pursuant to Article 5.” Since the Defendants cannot be deemed to have complied with the upper limit of the amount assessed by the members of the evaluation team commissioned pursuant to the above Table 1 in calculating the compensation amount, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have raised the compensation amount by 10% due to the occurrence of reasonable increase in the price of slaughtered livestock within the range of the average price determined by the Presidential Decree.

2) As to this, the plaintiffs argued that "total assessed amount of livestock = maximum assessed amount of compensation for slaughter = The maximum assessed amount of compensation for slaughter = The price may be adjusted when the price drops substantially according to the payment guidelines in this case." On January 15, 2011, the standards for payment of compensation for slaughter of pigs are not legal basis. However, the argument that the total assessed amount of livestock and the maximum assessed amount of compensation for slaughter of pigs are the same meaning as the standards for payment of compensation for slaughter of pigs is difficult to accept as interpretation of the Act on the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases, Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the Guidelines for Payment in this case, and that "where the price drops substantially due to the occurrence of "the time of price drops" in the payment guidelines in this case, the time of price adjustment cannot be determined separately by the Ordinance of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and there is no special ground to view that the guidelines for payment of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on January 15, 2011."

3) Therefore, the calculation and payment of the instant compensation by the Defendants are lawful.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge shall be appointed from among the judges;

Judges Jeon Soo-tae

Judges Park Jong-dae