Business-loss compensation for a permitted temporary structure after its permit period

1. 01Question

   Where a business operator ran a business in a lawfully built permitted temporary structure on land designated as the site of an urban planning facility, may the operator claim compensation for business loss when an unrelated public-interest project made it impossible to continue until the end of the permitted period, may the operator claim it when the loss came only after that period expired, and how is it decided whether the operator had a reasonable expectation of continuing to trade in that structure after the expiry date?

2. 02Holding

   The operator may claim compensation in principle where another public-interest project cut the business short within the permitted period, because the operator holds a legally protected expectation of using the structure until the permitted period ends unless the urban planning facility project is carried out. Where the loss came only after that expiry, the operator may not claim compensation unless special circumstances, such as a reasonable expectation of trading on past the expiry, existed at the time of the project approval notice. Whether such an expectation existed is decided by weighing together the circumstances of the permit and any extension, the remaining permit period at the approval notice date, the progress of both projects, and the content and history of the business.

   Summary of the holding, verbatim

   영업자가 기존의 허가에 따른 존치기간 만료일 이후에 도시계획시설사업과 무관한 다른 공익사업으로 인하여 가설건축물에서 영업을 할 수 없게 되었더라도, 공익사업의 사업인정고시 당시에 영업자에게 해당 가설건축물에서 존치기간 만료일 이후의 시점에도 계속해서 영업을 할 수 있으리라는 정당한 기대가 있었다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 영업자는 특별한 희생 또는 손실을 입었다고 볼 수 없어 영업손실보상을 청구할 수 없다.

   Unofficial English translation

   Even if, after the expiration of the retention period under the existing permit, a business operator became unable to conduct business in the temporary building due to another public interest project unrelated to the urban planning facility project, unless there are special circumstances such as that, at the time of the public notice of project approval of the public interest project, the business operator had a legitimate expectation that he or she would be able to continue operating the business in the temporary building even at a point in time after the expiration of the retention period, the business operator cannot be regarded as having suffered a special sacrifice or loss and therefore cannot claim business loss compensation.

3. 03Disposition

   Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision

   원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

4. 04Form of the test

   Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision

   영업자에게 그러한 정당한 기대가 있었는지는, 가설건축물 허가나 존치기간 연장허가의 경위, 해당 공익사업의 사업인정고시 당시 가설건축물의 잔여 존치기간, 해당 도시계획시설사업 및 공익사업의 진행 경과, 해당 영업의 내용과 운영 경과 등 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단해야 한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   Whether the business operator had such a legitimate expectation must be determined by comprehensively considering various circumstances, such as the circumstances under which the permission for the temporary building or the permission to extend the retention period was granted, the remaining retention period of the temporary building at the time of the public notice of project approval of the relevant public interest project, the progress of the relevant urban planning facility project and public interest project, and the nature and operational history of the relevant business.

5. 05Factors

   • 허가 대상 가설건축물의 소유자는 도시계획시설사업이 시행되지 않는 한 허가받은 존치기간 내에는 그 가설건축물을 사용할 수 있고
   • 도시계획시설사업이 시행될 경우에는 자신의 비용으로 그 가설건축물을 철거해야 할 의무를 부담할 뿐 아니라 가설건축물의 철거에 따른 손실보상을 청구할 수 없고
   • 소유자가 그 손실보상을 청구할 수 없는 이상 그의 가설건축물의 이용권능에 터 잡은 임차인 역시 가설건축물의 철거에 따른 영업손실의 보상을 청구할 수는 없다
   • 행정청이 그 신청을 거부하는 것이 재량권 일탈·남용에 해당한다는 등의 특별한 사정이 존재하지 않는 한 정당한 사유가 있는 것으로 인정하기 어렵다
   • 가설건축물 허가나 존치기간 연장허가의 경위, 해당 공익사업의 사업인정고시 당시 가설건축물의 잔여 존치기간

   Unofficial English translation

   • The owner of a temporary building subject to permission may use the temporary building within the permitted retention period unless an urban planning facility project is implemented, and

   • if an urban planning facility project is implemented, the owner bears not only the obligation to demolish the temporary building at his or her own expense, but also cannot claim compensation for losses arising from the demolition of the temporary building, and

   • since the owner cannot claim such compensation for losses, a lessee whose right to use the temporary building is founded upon the owner's right likewise cannot claim compensation for business losses arising from the demolition of the temporary building

   • unless there are special circumstances such as that the refusal of the application by the administrative agency constitutes an excess or abuse of discretion, it is difficult to recognize that there exist justifiable grounds

   • the circumstances under which the permission for the temporary building or the permission to extend the retention period was granted, the remaining retention period of the temporary building at the time of the public notice of project approval of the relevant public interest project

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 2001. 8. 24. 선고 2001다7209 판결(공2001하, 2063)

   Unofficial English translation

   Supreme Court Decision 2001Da7209 decided August 24, 2001 (Gong 2001 Ha, 2063)

   Decisions referred to

   대법원 2001. 8. 24. 선고 2001다7209 판결(공2001하, 2063)

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   What circumstances make it an abuse of the administrative authority's discretion to refuse an extension of the permitted period, so that the operator's expectation of trading past the expiry is legally protected?

   The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court, once it finds or rejects a reasonable expectation for this plaintiff, will show how the test works in practice. Any amendment to Article 64 of the National Land Planning and Utilisation Act or to the temporary structure rules, or a later Supreme Court decision on the scope of protected expectations, would require this entry to be read again.

Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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.