[1] The method of calculating the amount of compensation for labor expenses during the period of suspension of confinement

[2] The scope of compensation for losses arising from the fixed expenses disbursement during the period of suspension among business losses suffered by moving the place of business due to expropriation

[3] Whether the amount equivalent to depreciation of factory buildings, etc. that received compensation with acquisition price as of the date of adjudication on expropriation is excluded from compensation for losses due to fixed expenses during the period of suspension (affirmative with qualification)

[1] Under Articles 46, 51, and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4 of the Public Compensation for Loss, and Article 25 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the compensation for loss of personnel expenses during the period of suspension of business due to expropriation shall be for all of the personnel expenses, such as temporary closure allowances or temporary closure allowances, paid or payable throughout the entire period regardless of whether the period of suspension of business exceeds three months. However, if there is no other data on the criteria of the evaluation, the compensation for loss due to temporary suspension of business or temporary closure allowances shall be determined based on the method and scale of the business in question, the details of the business in question, the number of workers, the changes in the number of workers, the period of payment, and the period of payment, based on the calculation of the amount of compensation. Article 30-3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the amount of compensation for temporary suspension of business shall be calculated at the rate of average wages for workers meeting the requirements of the project operator.

[2] Among the business losses suffered by moving the place of business due to expropriation, compensation for losses incurred by the fixed expenses during the period of suspension of business shall be limited to the expenses expected to normally occur due to the minimum management affairs, etc. necessary for the relocation of business except for the expenses under the premise of production and business activities.

[3] Unless special circumstances exist to deem that the depreciation amount equivalent to the depreciation amount shall be excluded from compensation for losses incurred by fixed expenses during the period of suspension of business, such as conducting test operation over a considerable period after completion of the relocated factory or commencing operation in a phased manner.

[1] Articles 46, 51, and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4 of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 25(1) and (2), and Article 30-3(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss / [2] Articles 46, 51, and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4 of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 4 of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 25(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss / [3] Articles 46, 51, and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4 of the Special Act

Korea Joint Check Industry Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Seo Seo-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Kim Shin-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu12547 delivered on December 11, 1998

Of the part of the judgment below against the defendants, the part concerning the wage, etc., insurance premium (production cost), paper admission fee, vehicle maintenance cost, communication cost, water and mineral heat cost, travel expense, travel expense, book printing cost, office supplies cost, consumption cost, interest and discount cost, and depreciation cost among the fixed costs and losses, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. All remaining appeals by the defendants shall be dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Whether the financial statements, which form the basis for the appraisal of employment of the court below, are reliable

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, in assessing the amount of compensation for operating income and fixed expenses incurred by the Plaintiff Company due to its suspension of business due to the acceptance of this case, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations with respect to the credibility of the Plaintiff Company’s financial statements. The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

B. Whether the appraisal methods and criteria for the recruitment of the court below are appropriate

(1) Operating profit;

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant statutes and the records, it is proper to take measures based on the arithmetic mean of operating profits in the financial statements for the three years immediately preceding the date of the decision on expropriation of the case, and it cannot be said that there were errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the period of calculating operating profits, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The grounds of appeal

(2) Fixed costs loss.

(A) Wages, etc. portion

According to Articles 46, 51, and 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 4 of the Public Compensation for Loss, and Article 25 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, compensation for loss of personnel expenses during the period of suspension of business due to expropriation shall be made for all of the personnel expenses, such as business suspension allowances or business suspension allowances paid or to be paid over the whole period, regardless of whether the period of suspension of business exceeds three months. However, if there is no other data on the criteria of the evaluation, the compensation for loss due to business suspension allowances or business suspension allowances shall be made on the basis of the type and scale of the relevant business, the details of the business, the number of workers, the details of the business, the change in the number of workers, and the period of suspension of business, and the amount of compensation shall be reasonably assessed on the basis thereof. Article 30-3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the amount of compensation shall be calculated at the fixed rate of average wages for workers meeting the requirements as above.

However, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below calculated the amount of compensation for loss caused by the suspension of business of this case by employing the amount of compensation for loss assessed on the basis of personnel expenses paid to all workers employed by the plaintiff company for the three years immediately preceding the date of the decision on expropriation of this case. However, in the process of calculating the amount of compensation for loss incurred during the suspension of business under Article 25 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Compensation for Loss, it is clear that the above amount of compensation for loss incurred during the suspension of business under the provision of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Compensation for Loss was calculated by employing the maximum appraised value of the above appraiser calculated on the basis of accounting analysis method as it is, without examining the aforementioned factors separately. Thus, it is clear that

(b) Parts of welfare expenses, payment rental fees, insurance premiums (sales expenses and general management expenses), taxes and public departments, and payment fees (manufacturing expenses, sales expenses and general management expenses).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the relevant statutes and the records, the court below is just and correct to accept the appraisal of welfare expenses, payment rental fees, insurance premiums (sales expenses and general management expenses), taxes and public charges, payment fees (manufacturing expenses, sales expenses and general management expenses) losses among the fixed expenses during the period of suspension of business of the plaintiff company, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal on this point are not acceptable.

In addition, according to the records, it is difficult to accept the grounds of appeal to the effect that the above appraiser's assessment of losses caused by taxes, public duties and expenditures by the court below should be excluded from the fixed cost compensation amount acknowledged by the court below on the premise that corporate tax is included in the above assessment amount.

(c) Insurance premiums (manufacturing costs), paper fees, vehicle maintenance costs, communications costs, water and mineral heat costs, travel expenses, travel expenses, printing expenses, office supplies costs, expendable expenses, and interest and discount charges.

Among the business losses suffered by moving the place of business due to expropriation, the compensation for losses incurred by the fixed expenses during the period of suspension of business shall be limited to the expenses expected to normally occur due to the minimum management affairs, etc. necessary for the relocation of business, excluding the expenses under the premise of production and business activities.

However, according to the records, the judgment of the court below, which recognized the fixed amount of compensation for losses during the period of suspension, includes the expenses under the premise that the plaintiff company continues to engage in the production and business activity. Thus, in order to calculate the reasonable amount of compensation for the fixed amount of compensation for losses caused by the suspension of business in this case, the court below should have further deliberated on the part of the fixed amount of the above appraised's insurance premium (production expenses), land admission expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses, communication expenses, water and mine heating expenses, travel expenses, travel expenses, book printing expenses, office supplies expenses, consumption expenses, and discount expenses. Thus, the court below should have recognized the amount of compensation for the part of the above appraised amount of the fixed amount of compensation for losses caused by the suspension of business in order to calculate the reasonable amount of compensation for the loss of the fixed amount of expenses caused by the suspension of business in this case. Nevertheless, since the court below has employed the evaluation of the above appraiser without deliberation on this point, it erred

(d) Depreciation costs;

(1) Parts of buildings

Unless there are special circumstances to deem that the reduction in the period of suspension occurs, such as the commencement of test operation or the commencement of phased operation throughout a considerable period after the completion of the relocated factory, a factory building, etc. receiving compensation with the acquisition price as of the date of adjudication on expropriation shall be excluded from compensation for losses caused by fixed expenses during the period of suspension.

However, according to the records of the appraisal of the above appraiser employed by the court below, the above appraiser evaluated fixed expenses due to depreciation during the period of suspension based on the amount of depreciation on the financial statements of the plaintiff company, and included the depreciation amount for factory buildings, etc., which receive compensation for expropriation as acquisition price. Thus, the court below which has employed this as it is is erroneous in the misapprehension of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the depreciation amount to be excluded from compensation during the period of suspension of suspension of business, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

(2) Fluorial parts

According to the records, we cannot accept the grounds of appeal purporting that the Plaintiff Company should exclude the depreciation amount equivalent to fixed expenses from fixed expenses, on the premise that the Plaintiff’s expropriation of this case was made a compensation for gold in return for seeking an increase in the value of the instant objection, which was excluded from the compensation, by asserting that the Plaintiff Company incurred losses due to the disposal of this case’s gold type used for the production of the product, and seeking an increase in the value equivalent to the compensation amount. This part of the claim was withdrawn on July 10, 1998.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

(a) Land assessment;

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant statutes and the records, it is proper that the court below's determination that the above non-party 2 and non-party 3 employed the appraised value of the land of this case based on the actual use status (factory site) and land category in the surrounding Gangseo-gu Busan as the reference land, which is the development restriction zone within the natural green area like the land of this case, as the land of this case, as the reference land for the expropriation compensation of the land of this case, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the

(b) Expenses for relocating facilities;

According to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, the value-added tax included in the appraised value of the Integrated Technology Group of the non-party Co., Ltd. on the amount of compensation for the cost of the removal of machinery due to the expropriation of this case is not the person to whom the service is supplied, but the service provider bears the burden. Thus, the plaintiff to whom the service is supplied cannot be refundable as the input tax amount. Moreover, it is not deemed that the cost of the factory lighting facility included in the appraised value as to the cost of the removal of machinery, and the cost of the design and supervision for the construction are included in the appraised value as the acquisition price, and it is not deemed that the above appraised value as the compensation for the loss of the installation of machinery is double included in the amount of the factory compensation as the acquisition price.

3. Therefore, among the part against the Defendants in the judgment below against the Defendants, the part concerning the wage, etc., insurance premium (manufacturing cost), paper admission cost, vehicle maintenance cost, communication cost, water and mineral heat cost, travel expense, travel expense, book printing cost, office supplies cost, consumption cost, interest and discount cost, and depreciation cost among the fixed costs, shall be reversed, and this part shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeals by the Defendants shall be all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)