(This is a rewrite of an egregiously incorrect previous answer.)
I have always found the usual proof of this fact a little unsatisfactory and lacking in geometric intuition. Here is a more intuitive proof.
$K$ needs to be closed to ensure that a $\min$ exists.
We can assume that $\pi_K(x) \neq \pi_X(y)$ otherwise the result is trivial.
Let $L$ be the line $p(t) = \pi_K(x)+t (\pi_K(y)-\pi_K(y))$ and let $P$ be the orthogonal projection onto this line. It is straightforward to show that $\|P\| = 1$, and hence $\|Px-Py\| \le \|x-y\|$. This is the essential fact here.
Let $t_x,t_y$ be such that $p(t_x) = Px, p(t_y) = Py$. Note that we
must have $t_x \le 0$ and $t_y \ge 1$, as otherwise the definition of $\pi_K(x)$
or $\pi_K(y)$ would be contradicted.
Then $\|Px-Py\| = \|p(t_x)-p(t_y)\| = (t_y-t_x) \| \pi_K(x)-\pi_K(y)\| \ge \| \pi_K(x)-\pi_K(y)\|$.
Addendum:
To see why $t_x \le 0$, let $\phi(t)=\|x-p(t)\|^2 = \|x-Px\|^2+(t-t_x)^2\|\pi(x)-\pi(y)\|^2$.
Note that $\phi$ is convex, strictly decreasing for $t \le t_x$ and strictly increasing for $t \ge t_x$.
Also note that $p(t) \in K$ for $t \in [0,1]$ so $\phi(t) \ge \phi(0)$ on $t \in [0,1]$.
In particular, we must have $t_x \le 0$ otherwise $\phi$ would be strictly decreasing on $[0,t_x]$ which would be a contradiction.