beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part against the Plaintiff regarding compensation for farming loss is reversed, and this part of this case is applied.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the second ground of appeal, the court shall consider the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of social justice and equity, so long as it does not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the value judgment and fact-finding belong to the discretion of the fact-finding court, and the fact-finding which the fact-finding court has legally affirmed is binding on
(2) Article 48(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 131, Oct. 22, 2014). The lower court determined to the effect that the amount of farming compensation for the Plaintiff cannot be calculated as actual income under Article 48(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 131).
The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the selection of evidence and the determination of the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court, which is a substantial challenge to the fact-finding of the lower court
In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles as well as the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the method of calculating the amount of farming
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged that the farming loss compensation calculated as above was KRW 55,309,450, but determined that the amount of the above farming loss compensation was included in the compensation for the Plaintiff determined by the instant expropriation ruling and its ruling without stating the specific reasons, and paid the amount of the farming loss compensation.