The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant as to the plaintiff's stone axis shall be revoked, and this part shall be revoked.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 75 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) provides for compensation for buildings, standing trees, structures, and other goods fixed on the land (hereinafter “buildings, etc.”).

In full view of the contents and legislative purport of Articles 34, 50, 61, 75, and 83 through 85 of the Land Compensation Act, in order for a landowner to receive compensation for losses from a project operator pursuant to Article 75 of the Land Compensation Act, it is reasonable to deem that the landowner is entitled to remedy for losses pursuant to Articles 83 through 85 of the Land Compensation Act only when he/she goes through the adjudication procedure stipulated in Articles 34, 50, 61, 75, and 83 through 85 of the Land Compensation Act and immediately claims compensation for losses against the project operator without going through such adjudication procedure is not allowed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26551 Decided August 25, 201, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant, a project implementer, filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for adjudication of expropriation of the Plaintiff’s land, building, etc., which is expropriated as the project of this case, and the Defendant, as the project implementer, did not file an application for adjudication regarding the Plaintiff’s stone axis (hereinafter “the instant stone axis”) on the ground of the instant land as indicated in the lower judgment, on the ground that it is not subject to separate compensation. Accordingly, in the adjudication of expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on September 2, 201 and the objection ruling by February 17, 2012, only the said land on which the instant stone axis was fixed was subject to adjudication, but not subject to the said stone axis.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the claim for compensation for losses for the instant stone shed without going through a separate adjudication procedure shall be dismissed as unlawful.

Nevertheless, the lower court is on a different premise.