Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Residual business-facility loss compensation and the award procedure
Supreme Court, Apr. 9, 2020, 2017Du275 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 손실보상금등청구
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What does the condition for residual business-facility loss compensation in Article 47(3) of the former Enforcement Rules mean, may such a loss be claimed directly against the project operator without the award procedure, and which action lies where the land requisition tribunal wrongly decides that an item is not a compensation target?
Holding
The condition covers not only a case where continuing the business is entirely impossible or difficult without new installation or repair, but also one where partial inclusion obstructs the residual facilities and such work is needed to trade as before. A claimant must first complete the award procedure under Articles 34 and 50 of the former Act; whether it was completed is judged compensation item by item, and adding detail within a business of unified identity needs no further award procedure. Where the tribunal wrongly denies compensation for an item that is compensable under the statute, the payee must sue the project operator under Article 85(2) for increase or decrease of compensation.
Points at issue, verbatim
구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙 제47조 제3항에서 정한 잔여 영업시설 손실보상의 요건인 “공익사업에 영업시설의 일부가 편입됨으로 인하여 잔여시설에 그 시설을 새로이 설치하거나 잔여시설을 보수하지 아니하고는 그 영업을 계속할 수 없는 경우”의 의미
Unofficial English translation
Meaning of the phrase "where, because part of business facilities is taken over for a public project, the business cannot be continued unless the facilities are newly installed in the remaining facilities or the remaining facilities are repaired" as a requirement for compensation for loss of remaining business facilities under Article 47(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Expropriation of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Projects
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the part where the plaintiff lost the case, and this case as to such part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The defendant's final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
잔여 영업시설에 시설을 새로이 설치하거나 잔여 영업시설을 보수하지 않고는 그 영업이 전부 불가능하거나 곤란하게 되는 경우만을 뜻하는 것이 아니라, 공익사업에 영업시설 일부가 편입됨으로써 잔여 영업시설의 운영에 일정한 지장이 초래되고, 이에 따라 종전처럼 정상적인 영업을 계속하기 위해서는 잔여 영업시설에 시설을 새로 설치하거나 잔여 영업시설을 보수할 필요가 있는 경우도 포함된다고 보아야 한다
Unofficial English translation
it is not limited to cases where, unless facilities are newly installed in the remaining business facilities or the remaining business facilities are repaired, the business becomes entirely impossible or difficult, but must be regarded as also including cases where, because part of the business facilities is taken over for a public project, a certain impediment is caused to the operation of the remaining business facilities and, accordingly, it is necessary to newly install facilities in the remaining business facilities or to repair the remaining business facilities in order to continue the normal business as before
Factors
- 공익사업에 영업시설의 일부가 편입됨으로 인하여 잔여시설에 그 시설을 새로이 설치하거나 잔여시설을 보수하지 아니하고는 그 영업을 계속할 수 없는 경우
- 재결절차를 밟지 않은 채 곧바로 사업시행자를 상대로 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙 제47조 제3항에 따라 잔여 영업시설의 손실보상을 청구할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
- 영업의 단일성·동일성이 인정되는 범위에서 보상금 산정의 세부요소를 추가로 주장하는 경우, 별도로 재결절차를 거쳐야 하는지 여부(소극)
- 피보상자가 제기할 소송(=보상금 증감의 소)과 그 상대방(=사업시행자)
Unofficial English translation
• Where, because part of business facilities is taken over for a public project, the business cannot be continued unless the facilities are newly installed in the remaining facilities or the remaining facilities are repaired
• Whether compensation for loss of remaining business facilities may be claimed directly against the project operator pursuant to Article 47(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Expropriation of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Projects, without undergoing the adjudication procedure (negative)
• Whether the adjudication procedure must separately be undergone where additional details of the calculation of compensation are asserted within the scope in which the unity and identity of the business are recognized (negative)
• The lawsuit to be filed by the person entitled to compensation (= action for increase or decrease of compensation) and the counterparty thereto (= the project operator)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 7. 20. 선고 2015두4044 판결(공2018하, 1775)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Du4044 decided July 20, 2018 (Gong 2018 Ha, 1775)
Decisions referred to
[1][2][3] 대법원 2018. 7. 20. 선고 2015두4044 판결(공2018하, 1775) / [1] 대법원 1999. 5. 14. 선고 97누4623 판결(공1999상, 1173) / [2] 대법원 2011. 9. 29. 선고 2009두10963 판결(공2011하, 2238), 대법원 2018. 5. 15. 선고 2017두41221 판결(공2018상, 1088) / [3] 대법원 2010. 8. 19. 선고 2008두822 판결(공2010하, 1823)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Once the admissibility objection is removed on remand, how are the condominium-project losses to be proved and valued within the compensation item the tribunal already heard?
The Seoul High Court's remand judgment on the condominium project losses will show how the compensation item is proved and valued once the admissibility objection is removed. Any amendment to Article 47(3) of the Enforcement Rules or to Articles 34, 50 and 85 of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 10 March 2017 (2014Nu7321), ordered the defendant to pay KRW 5,984,109,000 for repair of the residual golf course, taking Article 75-2(1) of the former Land Acquisition and Compensation Act by analogy, and KRW 386,078,000 for shutdown loss over the four-month repair under Article 47(3) of the Enforcement Rules. It held the claim for losses of the condominium project run on the land under permits inadmissible in a suit for increase or decrease of compensation, because the plaintiff had not completed the award procedure for those costs.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that grounding the duty in the analogical application of Article 75-2(1) was not appropriate, but that the conclusion requiring the repair costs and the shutdown loss was right, so the defendant's appeal was dismissed. On the plaintiff's appeal it held that the condominium losses and the repair costs were losses of one unified golf course business caused by the partial inclusion, that the Central Land Tribunal had heard that item in substance, and that breaking down the permit costs in the suit was an attack within one item. The court below had misread the requirements of a suit for increase or decrease of compensation and failed to hold the necessary hearing, so the part rejecting the plaintiff's claim was reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- Losses not caused by the partial inclusion of part of the business facilities in the public works.
- A case where the business lacks a single, unified identity, so that the added claim is a separate compensation item needing its own award procedure.
- A compensation item the tribunal never heard in substance, since the completed hearing of the item was the reason the award procedure counted as done.
Record verification notes
List each item put to the tribunal in the award and reconsideration and compare it with the items pleaded in the suit, since the Court treated the permit costs as already heard within one item. Then confirm which version governs, as the Court applied the former Act before the amendment of 23 March 2013 (Act No. 11690) and the Rules before the amendment of 22 October 2014 (Ordinance No. 131).
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙 제47조 제3항에서 정한 잔여 영업시설 손실보상의 요건인 “공익사업에 영업시설의 일부가 편입됨으로 인하여 잔여시설에 그 시설을 새로이 설치하거나 잔여시설을 보수하지 아니하고는 그 영업을 계속할 수 없는 경우”의 의미 [2] 공익사업에 영업시설 일부가 편입됨으로써 잔여 영업시설에 손실을 입은 사람이 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 제34조, 제50조 등에 규정된 재결절차를 밟지 않은 채 곧바로 사업시행자를 상대로 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙 제47조 제3항에 따라 잔여 영업시설의 손실보상을 청구할 수 있는지 여부(소극) / 이때 재결절차를 거쳤는지 판단하는 방법 및 영업의 단일성·동일성이 인정되는 범위에서 보상금 산정의 세부요소를 추가로 주장하는 경우, 별도로 재결절차를 거쳐야 하는지 여부(소극) [3] 어떤 보상항목이 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법령상 손실보상대상에 해당함에도 관할 토지수용위원회가 사실을 오인하거나 법리를 오해함으로써 손실보상대상에 해당하지 않는다고 잘못된 내용의 재결을 한 경우, 피보상자가 제기할 소송(=보상금 증감의 소)과 그 상대방(=사업시행자)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of the phrase "where, because part of business facilities is taken over for a public project, the business cannot be continued unless the facilities are newly installed in the remaining facilities or the remaining facilities are repaired" as a requirement for compensation for loss of remaining business facilities under Article 47(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Expropriation of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Projects [2] Whether a person who has suffered loss to remaining business facilities because part of the business facilities has been taken over for a public project may claim compensation for loss of remaining business facilities directly against the project operator pursuant to Article 47(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Expropriation of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Projects, without undergoing the adjudication procedure provided in Articles 34, 50, etc. of the former Act on the Expropriation of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Projects (negative) / Method of determining whether the adjudication procedure has been undergone in such a case, and whether the adjudication procedure must separately be undergone where additional details of the calculation of compensation are asserted within the scope in which the unity and identity of the business are recognized (negative) [3] Where a compensation item falls within the subject of loss compensation under the statutes governing the expropriation of land, etc. for public projects and compensation therefor, but the competent Land Expropriation Committee, having misapprehended facts or misunderstood the legal principle, erroneously renders an adjudication that the item does not fall within the subject of loss compensation, the lawsuit to be filed by the person entitled to compensation (= action for increase or decrease of compensation) and the counterparty thereto (= the project operator)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the part where the plaintiff lost the case, and this case as to such part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The defendant's final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률(2013. 3. 23. 법률 제11690호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제77조 제1항, 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙(2014. 10. 22. 국토교통부령 제131호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제47조 제3항 [2] 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률(2013. 3. 23. 법률 제11690호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제26조, 제28조, 제30조, 제34조, 제50조, 제61조, 제83조, 제84조, 제85조, 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙(2014. 10. 22. 국토교통부령 제131호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제47조 제3항 [3] 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률(2013. 3. 23. 법률 제11690호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제34조, 제50조, 제85조 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger