The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below held that the defendant's taking of the measure of this case as stated in the court below's decision in response to the astronomical crisis is difficult to view it as an unlawful act in violation of public official's official duty. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to illegality under Article 2 (1) of the

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court determined that, although the Plaintiff was unable to use and benefit from the land use right of this case as indicated in the lower judgment after the instant measure, this cannot be deemed as a special sacrifice due to public necessity, and even if this cannot be deemed as a special sacrifice, unless there is any Act on Compensation even if it was based on a special sacrifice, the right to claim direct compensation pursuant to Article 23(3) of the Constitution does not occur, and that the right to claim compensation cannot be acknowledged by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions on compensation for losses under the Plant Protection Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the compensation for losses and special sacrifice under Article 23 (3) of the Constitution.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.