beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's grounds for appeal and the judgment of the court of first instance
A. In the case of the expropriation ruling by the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal of the grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff, the court of first instance calculated the business compensation based on the average operating income from 2009 to 2011. Unlike the expropriation ruling, the court of first instance shall calculate it based on the average operating income from 2011 to 2013. Since the instant development project has reduced rapidly in business income in the year 2013, it should exclude operating income from the average operating income for the last three years.
B. Article 46(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act provides that “The operating profit shall be assessed on the basis of the average operating profit for the last three years of the pertinent business (excluding the year in which the normal business is not performed due to special circumstances), but where the operating profit has been reduced due to the announcement or announcement of the plan or implementation of public works, it shall be assessed on the basis of the average operating profit for three years before the relevant announcement or announcement date.”
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, namely, ① the operating income of the Plaintiff, a corporation, operated by the Plaintiff, was KRW 1,271,020,967 for the year 2010 for which the instant business plan was approved and publicly announced, but was reduced to KRW 61,787,226 for the year -61,787,226 for the year 201, but a re-increased to KRW 233,760,296 for the year 2012, and the operating income of G corporation operated by B in the same improvement project zone was 188,80 million for the year 2009 to 2013, it is difficult to view that it was difficult to deem that the operating income of the Plaintiff, operated by the Plaintiff, was 190,089,736 won for the year 2013 from 209 to 2013.