1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that "(c)(1) of the first instance court's last sentence "(d)(1)" is "(1) of the second sentence of the first instance court's judgment," and "the defendant does not request the purchase or expropriation of the remaining land of this case to the defendant," and "the defendant does not accept a claim for compensation for the remaining land of this case and the claim for compensation for the depreciation of value" are not accepted. The last sentence of the 13th sentence is followed "(1) if only the plaintiff transfers only the second factory, it is impossible to manufacture the product of the second factory," and in this case, the defendant pays business compensation for the closure of the second factory, not the second factory, so the defendant is favorable to the defendant, but the first and second factory should be transferred together for the manufacture of the product.

there is no evidence that the production of a product becomes impossible if only a second factory is transferred.

In addition, even if it is assumed that if only the second factory is transferred as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is impossible to produce the product in the relocated second factory or it is necessary to add equipment and facilities, such circumstance alone does not make it possible to include the operating loss of the second factory, which is not subject to expropriation, in the amount of business compensation for the relocation of the second factory

7. The plaintiff asserts that the repair of the first factory is inevitable when the plaintiff relocates only the second factory, and pursuant to Article 47 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the renovation cost of the first factory and the first factory operating loss during the renovation and repair period.

However, the plaintiff did not go through the adjudication procedure on the cost of renovation and compensation for business losses of the first factory pursuant to Article 47 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act, and therefore, it is just in the lawsuit to increase the compensation for expropriation against the project operator.