Whether a person who received compensation for losses due to the closure of his/her business due to indirect influence due to the implementation of a public project outside a public project implementation zone falls under a person subject to relocation measures under Article 8(1) of the Special Act on Compensation for Public Loss (negative)

The relocation measures stipulated in Article 8(1) of the Special Act on Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Residents are provided to migrants who are deprived of their base of livelihood by providing land, etc. necessary for the implementation of a public project, so that the project implementer creates housing sites or constructs housing on the land and supplies migrants with the construction of housing on the land. In a case where a person who operates a business outside the zone for implementation of a public project only was compensated for losses due to the closure of his/her business due to indirect influence due to the implementation of the public project, it cannot be said that the person provided land, etc. necessary for the implementation of the public

Article 8(1) of the Special Act on the Compensation of Public Loss, Article 5(1) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Compensation of Public Loss, Article 23-5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation of Public Loss, and

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young and 1114 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Rural Development Corporation and one other (the defendant's Attorney Dok-si et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na3868 delivered on December 16, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant Rural Development Corporation was entrusted by the defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation with the installation of the outer facilities and incidental facilities for urban development and industrial complex development among its development projects (hereinafter referred to as the "water embankment construction project in this case") and completed January 24, 1994 after the commencement of construction on October 12, 1987. Gyeonggi-do entrusted with the purchase of land necessary for the development project in this case and tide embankment and the relocation measures for residents by the defendants on October 7, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Special Act") and the implementation of the relevant tide embankment construction project in this case, which became the ground for the relocation and removal measures for the plaintiff's relocation and removal of the housing site after the completion of the construction project in this case's relocation and removal measures for the plaintiff's relocation and removal of the housing site after the completion of the construction project in this case's relocation and removal measures for the plaintiff's relocation and removal of the land out of the project area.

The measures for resettlement stipulated in Article 8 (1) of the Public Special Act are provided to migrants who lose their base of livelihood by providing land, etc. necessary for the implementation of a public project. As such, if a person who runs a business outside a public project execution zone is merely compensated for losses due to the discontinuation of his/her business through indirect influence due to the implementation of the public project, the person who provided land, etc. necessary for the implementation of the public project would lose his/her base of livelihood and cannot be deemed as a migrants who need such measures for resettlement. Therefore, the court below's dismissal of this part of the plaintiffs' claim is justified as a result, and there is no error of law by misapprehending legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal. The ground for appeal on this point is not acceptable.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its holding, and held that even if the plaintiffs concurrently run the Kim Farming business and the Kim Processing Business, the processing expenses to be deducted in calculating the amount of compensation for loss due to the extinguishment of Kim Farming Business cannot be deemed to be less than the case of consignment processing, and that only the processing expenses for two years shall not be deducted when compensating for the loss due to the extinguishment of Kim Farming Business, on the ground that only the processing expenses to be deducted in calculating the amount of compensation for the loss due to the extinguishment of Kim Farming Business was compensated for the two years as a result of the closure of Kim Farming Business, as alleged in the ground of appeal

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)