In the event that farmland is inappropriate as the site for agricultural crops already cultivated due to the implementation of a public project, if there is no particular obstacle to cultivating other agricultural crops, whether such farmland constitutes "where cultivation becomes impossible" under Article 23-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation of Losses Act (negative)

Article 23-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Use of Compensation for Public Loss (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 344 of December 31, 2002) refers to the case where cultivation of farmland itself becomes impossible due to the implementation of a public project due to the surrounded area, river, etc., and it does not include the case where it appears that it would not interfere with the cultivation of other crops even if it is inappropriate to be a site for the greenhouse of agricultural crops already cultivated due to the implementation of a public project, such as the occurrence of noise and vibration, the decrease of sunshine, etc.

Article 23-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 344 on December 31, 2002)

Plaintiff

Korea Highway Corporation (Attorney Seo-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2001Na8157 delivered on March 27, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 23-2 (Indirect Compensation for Farmland, etc.) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 344, Dec. 31, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") provides that a farmland outside a public project implementation zone shall be deemed incorporated into a public project implementation zone at the request of its owner in cases where cultivation is impossible due to the implementation of a public project. Article 29 (Compensation for Loss) of the Enforcement Rule provides that a farmland incorporated into a public project implementation zone shall be paid a loss in farming. "Where cultivation is impossible" as provided in Article 23-2 of the Enforcement Rule means a case where cultivation becomes impossible because it is surrounded by a mountainous district, river, etc. due to the implementation of a public project, etc., as the land in this case, the decision of the court below is just and not erroneous in the application of Article 23-2 of the Enforcement Rule as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. In addition, even if it can be predicted that the occurrence of loss is caused by the execution of a public project, and the scope of the loss can be specified, and even if the facilities, such as plastic houses, etc., installed on farmland outside the public project implementation zone, are eligible for indirect compensation of structures, etc. under Article 23-6 of the Enforcement Rule, if farmland outside the public project implementation zone does not fall under farmland subject to compensation under Article 23-2 of the Enforcement Rule, it shall not be eligible for the amount of agricultural loss under Article 29(1) of the Enforcement Rule. Thus, even if the land of this case does not fall under farmland subject to compensation under Article 23-2 of the Enforcement Rule, other indirect compensation provisions concerning indirect compensation such as Article 23-6 of the Enforcement Rule, etc., even if the land of this case does not fall under farmland subject to compensation under Article 23-2 of the Enforcement Rule, it is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning's explanation, but it is justified in its conclusion, and it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)