beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
A. The main text of Article 73(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) provides that “If the price of remaining land is reduced or other losses are incurred due to the acquisition or use of part of a group of land belonging to the same owner, or if the construction of a passage, ditch, fence, etc. or other construction is necessary on the remaining land, the project operator shall compensate for such losses or construction costs, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
Here, a loss to be compensated by a project operator for a specific public project is premised on the fact that the project operator acquires or uses part of a group of land belonging to the same owner for the public project, resulting in the remaining land.
Therefore, even if there was a change in the actual conditions of use or a decline in the value of use or exchange with respect to such remaining land, if such loss is not caused by the acquisition or use of part of the land for public works, it cannot be deemed that the remaining land is subject to compensation for losses under the main sentence of Article 73(1) of the Land Compensation Act,
B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment partially accepted by the lower court reveals the following facts.
(1) The Defendant is a project implementer responsible for the provision of land compensation for an expressway private project (hereinafter “instant public project”), and the Plaintiffs H located in the U.S. from November 4, 2008 to June 21, 201, who died on February 4, 2016, during which the lawsuit is pending, and the co-inheritors took over the lawsuit, but the co-inheritors took over the lawsuit for convenience.