Whether Article 25-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Loss (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 493 of Oct. 28, 1991), which provides for the assessment of loss due to the abolition of fisheries, may apply mutatis mutandis to the assessment of loss due to the abolition of dairy industry due to

Article 24 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Use of Compensation for Loss (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 493 of Oct. 28, 1991) does not provide for the same cases as the dairy industry in addition to the provisions concerning the assessment of losses for the closure of the business. In light of the nature of the provision, Article 25-2 (1) of the above Enforcement Rule, which provides for the assessment of losses due to the abolition of the fishery business, may apply mutatis mutandis to the

Article 4 (3) of the former Act on the Compensation of Public Loss (amended by Act No. 4484, Dec. 31, 1991); Article 24 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 493, Oct. 28, 1991); Article 25-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (Elimination by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation

[Judgment of the court below]

Central Land Tribunal and one other Defendants (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3441 delivered on January 25, 1990

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu3562 delivered on October 2, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on its adopted evidence, that a large scale of industrial complex was created in the whole mine area of 42,837 square meters before the previous mine area ( Address omitted) where the plaintiff had been engaged in dairy farming, and therefore the plaintiff could not seek land for dairy farming in that area. The sum of the compensation amount for the existing land or facilities, etc. that the plaintiff had engaged in dairy farming cannot purchase in the above area adjacent to the above land, so it is difficult for the plaintiff to actually carry out the dairy farming business on October 30, 1987 because it is difficult for the plaintiff to carry out the dairy farming business in fact to move it to another place, and determined that the plaintiff's dairy farming business constituted the closure of business as provided in Article 24 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and Compensation for Loss, which applies mutatis mutandis to compensation for land

According to the records, we affirm the measures determined as falling under the discontinuance of business under Article 24 of the above Enforcement Rule because it is difficult to seek a land that can develop grassland from the existing land or facilities adjacent to the above land, and it is difficult to actually move the land to another place for dairy farming, and therefore it is difficult to continue the dairy farming, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out. There is no ground for this issue.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 24 of the above Enforcement Rule, which points out the theory, does not separately provide for the same case as the dairy farming business in addition to the provision on the appraisal of losses incurred in the discontinuance of business. In light of its nature, Article 25-2 (1) of the above Enforcement Rule, which provides the appraisal of losses caused by the abolition of fishery business, may apply mutatis mutandis to the appraisal of losses caused by the abolition of dairy business. Therefore, the court below's decision that calculated losses according to the method of the above provision is just and there is no error of law as otherwise

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.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)