A person entitled to receive agricultural compensation under Article 29 (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss.

The compensation for farming under Article 29 (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss of Land and Transport shall be paid in cases where a person who cultivates farmland by using the farmland subject to expropriation in the area where the public project is implemented makes it impossible to continue farming in the future due to the expropriation of the farmland. In this regard, the proviso of the same paragraph stipulates that if the owner of a non-self-owned farmland is a farmer residing in the area concerned, the actual farmer shall be compensated in accordance with the consultation between the owner and the actual farmer. In cases falling under the above provision, the actual farmer shall not be the person entitled to the compensation for farming as a matter of course, but the actual farmer shall be subject to the consultation with the owner, and if such consultation is not carried out, the farmer shall be deemed to have made a special sacrifice due to the implementation of the public project, only if the farmer is deemed to continue farming in the future if the public project was not carried out

Article 29(5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Office, Attorney Kim Sung-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 98Na6694 delivered on August 27, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below decided that the plaintiff had the above 192. from December 31, 1992 to December 31, 195 and the non-party 1, Jeollabuk-do received the farmland from the plaintiff 1 to December 5, 1991 under the former Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Act No. 4574 of August 5, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) as the execution area of the development project for Jeonju Science Industry Complex (hereinafter the "public project of this case"), and had the plaintiff cultivate and cultivate the farmland of this case from the plaintiff 199 to the plaintiff 9 in the above 9-year area for which the approval of the execution plan was made on May 18, 195 (hereinafter the "farmland of this case"). Thus, it is difficult to find the plaintiff 1 to receive the farmland of this case from the plaintiff 1 to the 9-year area for which the plaintiff 1 had no farmland for the above 9-year farmland.

2. According to Article 29 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Use and Compensation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 121, Oct. 15, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Rule of the Public Use and Compensation Act"), with respect to farmland to be incorporated into a public project implementation zone, the amount of farming compensation calculated on the basis of actually cultivated crops shall be paid (Paragraph 1); and the amount of farming losses for farmland which is not self-arable farmland shall be paid to the actual farmer (main sentence of Paragraph 5); and in addition, in light of the purport of Article 22 of the former Industrial Sites and Development Act and Article 3(1) of the Addenda of the Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993, Aug. 5, 1993), a local government public corporation designated and publicly announced as a local government public project zone pursuant to the former Industrial Sites and Development Act shall be deemed project approval and public notification under the Land Expropriation Act as of the date of approval and public notification of the local government public project.

However, farming compensation shall be compensated in cases where a person who cultivates farmland subject to expropriation in a public project implementation zone is unable to continue farming in the future due to expropriation of farmland, and special sacrifice occurs in the future. In this regard, Article 29(5) proviso of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Special Act provides that if the owner of a non-self-owned farmland is a farmer residing in the relevant region, he/she shall be compensated in accordance with the agreement between the owner and the actual farmer. In cases falling under the above provision, even if the actual farmer is at the time of approval and public announcement of a local government public project implementation plan, he/she is not a person entitled to receive farming compensation as a matter of course, but shall comply with the agreement between the owner and the farmer, and if such agreement is not reached, he/she shall be deemed to have made a special sacrifice due to the execution of public project only when the farmer is deemed to continue farming in the future if the relevant public project had not been implemented.

However, according to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the plaintiff, knowing that the farmland in this case will be incorporated into the execution area of the public project in this case, was cultivated by leasing and cultivating the farmland in the unit of one year from December 31, 1992 to December 31, 195 every three years from December 31, 1995, and did not cultivate the farmland in this case any longer due to the expiration of the lease term prior to the expropriation of the farmland in this case. In light of the above circumstances, even if the public project in this case was not implemented, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to continue cultivating the farmland in this case, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have suffered losses that the plaintiff would not be able to cultivate from the farmland in this case due to the execution of the public project in this case.

In the same purport, the court below is just to dismiss all the claims against the Defendants on the premise that the Plaintiff is the recipient of the agricultural compensation in this case, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the time of judgment on the actual farmer who is the compensation for farming, or misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence. The plaintiff pointed out in the ground of appeal that the judgment of the court below is erroneous and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the value of evidence and thus, the point of time of judgment on the actual farmer is the enforcement date of compensation. However, even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below in detail, it is clear

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)