1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The reasoning for this case is as follows, except for the modification of a part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the reasoning for this case is as to the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] Part of the Judgment of the first instance court is as follows: Part 5, 8, and 13, which are written in the following box.

A) Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”)

Article 45(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act provides that “where permission, etc. is required under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the course of conducting business, such business shall be subject to permission, etc. before the public announcement of the project approval is given.” Article 67(1) of the Land Compensation Act provides that the calculation of compensation for losses due to the implementation of a public project shall be based on the price at the time the consultation is made in case of consultation, and on the price at the time of adjudication of expropriation or use in case of adjudication, and that at the time of adjudication of expropriation or use in case of adjudication.” Thus, the determination of whether a “business conducted as permitted before the public announcement of project approval, etc. is made” under Article 45(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act shall be based on the date of consultation, expropriation or use adjudication (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du1641, Sept. 9, 201; Article 25-3(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du274, Dec. 264, 207.