영업손실보상의 대상인 영업의 개념과 범위

This paper is a commentary on Supreme Court Decision 2010Du12842 decided on December 13, 2012. The main issue of this decision is whether a business without permission, license. return, etc. according to relevant act and subordinate statute must be always excluded from the sales compensation. This decision held that considering the type and legal substance of permission, license, etc. and legislative intent of relevant acts and subordinate statutes, the absence of permission, license. return, etc. does not always make a business itself illegal. This decision thereby suggested a restrictive interpretation of Article 45 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc.. In conclusion, we must not assume that a business without permission, license. return, etc. according to relevant acts and subordinate statutes is not worth sales compensation. Article 45 is not established to impose sanctions on a illegal business. It only provides negative requirements to exclude a business which is not suitable for the sales compensation. A business without permission, license. return, etc. is not always a business which is not suitable for the sales compensation. This decision accepts the aforementioned point. One regretful factor is that this decision did not show persuasive grounds for the above argument.