A. The nature of administrative litigation under Article 75-2(1) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 1990) concerning increase or decrease in compensation filed by a landowner or interested person pursuant to Article 75-2(2) of the same Act, and whether the provisions of Article 75-2(2) of the same Act also apply to the lawsuit pending in the court at the time of enforcement of the new Act (affirmative), and whether the provisions of Article 75-2(1) of the same Act concerning the period of release apply to the case where a business person is added to a

(b) The case affirming the appraisal that has been appraised on the basis of the acquisition price on the grounds that it is impossible or remarkably difficult to reuse the plastic houses or germs fixed on the land to be expropriated by dividing and transferring them economically;

(c) The case holding that it cannot be said that the transfer fees for saw fire trucks, etc. deemed ordinarily required in moving the place of business, which is a mushroom cultivator, cannot be deemed as having been included in the compensation amount without any legal basis.

A. Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 1990) provides that if a landowner or person concerned files an administrative lawsuit against an increase or decrease of compensation pursuant to paragraph (1) above, a co-defendant shall be a co-defendant in addition to the ruling authority. This lawsuit shall be deemed a necessary co-litigation. Since the supplementary part does not include any provision excluding the application of the new law to a case pending at the time of the enforcement of the new law, the provision of Article 75-2(2) of the Land Expropriation Act applies to a lawsuit under paragraph (1) pending in the court at the time of the enforcement of the new law, and accordingly, if a business owner is added as a co-litigant, the provision of Article 75-2(1) concerning the period of release cannot be applied.

B. The case holding that the appraisal based on the acquisition price is justifiable, since it is technically impossible or considerably difficult to reuse the article fixed on the land, since it is not a technical problem but a matter to be judged from an economic point of view, and since the plastic house and frial are in light of its constituent material, it is deemed that it is technically impossible or considerably difficult to separate and reuse it, and thus, it is reasonable to conduct appraisal based on the acquisition price.

(c)The case holding that according to Article 4 (3) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, which is applied mutatis mutandis by Articles 51 and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, and Article 25 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, it cannot be deemed that the transfer fee for a sawbus carriage car, etc., which is considered to be ordinarily required in moving the place of business, is included in the amount of compensation without any legal basis.

(a)Article 8 and Article 15 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 63(b) of the Civil Procedure Act.Article 49(c) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 51 and Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4(3) of the Public Loss and Compensation Act, Article 25(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act,

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8787 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1791), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9124 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2259), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3775 delivered on January 29, 191 (Gong191, 82)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

The Central Land Tribunal and one other, the Defendants Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu5661 delivered on November 7, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the first, second, and third points

1. The opinion of the party members (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8787 delivered on May 28, 1991) that Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 1990), which Article 75-2 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 199, provides that if an administrative litigation is filed against a landowner or a person concerned, the person who filed the lawsuit shall be the defendant in addition to the ruling authority if the lawsuit is filed against the land owner or a person concerned, the person who is a joint defendant in addition to the ruling authority shall be the joint defendant in addition to the ruling authority, and this lawsuit shall be deemed a necessary co-litigation, and since Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act does not exclude the application of the new law to the case pending at the time of enforcement of the amended Act, the provisions of the Land Expropriation Act shall also apply to the lawsuit under paragraph (1).

2. Therefore, the court below was just in holding that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee on May 30, 1989 against the increase or decrease of compensation, and the revised Article 75-2 (2) of the Land Expropriation Act enters into force after the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the cancellation of the decision of this case on the increase or decrease of compensation, and the defendant Corporation, a business operator, additionally filed a claim for compensation of this case to the defendant under Article 75-2 (2) of the amended Land Expropriation Act, was lawful, and it is not acceptable since it is merely an independent opinion disputing from

On the fourth ground

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the reasoning of the judgment below that the appraisal of the Hanyang and the Korea Land Appraisal Co., Ltd., which form the basis for the judgment in this case, did not disclose the period of suspension of business or the amount of profit, which serves as the basis for calculating the operating right evaluation, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was an error in the rules of evidence or in the incomplete hearing, such as the theory of lawsuit,

2. In assessing for compensating for losses pursuant to the Land Expropriation Act, the important matters of the decision on the resolution required by the Act should be clearly specified, and it should be explained to the extent that the appraisal could have been made by reflecting various matters that constitute the factors for pricing. If the appraisal conducted by the above joint office did not disclose the period of suspension of business or the amount of profit, etc., which is the basis for calculating the goodwill, the said appraisal could not be objectively recognized that it was properly made. If the said appraisal was unlawful on such grounds, the determination by the court below on the remaining grounds that the said appraisal was illegal shall not affect the outcome of the instant case.

3. Therefore, without examining the issue, there is no reason.

On the 5.6 Grounds

1. Examining the written appraisal by the Nonparty, the Nonparty’s appraiser in the instant case, rather than deeming the germs, which is an accessory to the plastic house, as an independent object from the plastic house, as an independent object, in assessing the plastic house, it is deemed that the plastic house was evaluated together including the stop, which is an accessory to the plastic house, and the specific details of the plastic house and stop value were indicated in the said plastic house. Therefore, the said appraisal cannot be deemed to include the plastic house, which

2. Whether an article fixed to the land to be expropriated is not a technical issue but a matter to be determined from an economic point of view (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3775 delivered on January 29, 191). Examining the record, in light of the records, the vinyl and fung in this case, which became the issue in this case, are technically separate and transferred to another person, but it seems impossible or considerably difficult to reuse it, and thus, the appraisal by the Nonparty of the lower court appraiser based on the acquisition price should be deemed justifiable.

3. Article 49 of the Land Expropriation Act provides for standing timber, buildings, and other things settled on the land to be expropriated or used as compensation for transfer fees. However, in addition to compensation for losses under Articles 46, 47, 49, and 50 of the same Act, compensation for losses incurred by landowners, etc. due to expropriation or use of land, other than compensation for losses under Articles 46, 47, 49, and 50 of the same Act. Under Article 4(3) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 57-2 of the same Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall determine not only those fixed on the land, but also those fixed on the land, farm products, seedlings, packaging, locking, immigration expenses, methods and criteria for calculating the amount of compensation, and Article 25(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that losses incurred by the relocation of a place of business shall be the amount of ordinary expenses incurred before the date of business suspension due to the relocation of the place of business. Thus, it shall not be deemed that the relocation charges for transport of saw.

4. According to the appraisal report by the non-party appraiser of the court below, the period of suspension of business due to the confinement of the mushroom cultivator of this case owned by the plaintiff was 4.5 months, including 1.5 months and 1 cultivation period, and the evaluation of the amount of loss during the period of suspension of business itself does not evaluate the amount of loss incurred to the business right itself, and the above appraisal cannot be deemed to have been conducted without any reliable data, and the above appraisal period cannot be deemed to have been illegal. Although there is an expression inappropriate for the explanation of the appraisal report, it cannot be said that the appraisal violates Article 30(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Losses Act.

5. The judgment of the court below does not contain any error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to dispute from an independent point of view.

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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)