토지수용이의재결처분취소
1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,653,080 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 1, 2017 to May 10, 2018, and the following.
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: Road business [B] - Public notice : C by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport - Business operator: Defendant
B. The Central Land Expropriation Commission’s ruling on expropriation on January 5, 2017 - Subject to expropriation: ① 639 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, ② E-Do 517 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); ③ 3,636,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant obstacles”) on the D ground surface packing - Total compensation amounting to KRW 33,636,000 (hereinafter “compensation amounting to KRW 21,00 per square meter”) (2) of the instant 2 land compensation amounting to KRW 10,857,00 (unit price of KRW 21,000 per square meter): 9,360,000 (unit price of KRW 21,000 per square meter) on the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”); and 3,630,0000 square meters on the instant land surface packing - Korea Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Appraisal Corporation”) on the date of expropriation; and
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on May 25, 2015 - Plaintiff’s objection is dismissed. - An appraisal corporation: Sam Chang Chang Corporation and the Central Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “Appraisal of Objection”)
D. The appraiser F’s appraisal result (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - The land No. 1 of this case: 14,332,770 won (unit price of 22,430 square meters per square meter) and the land No. 2 of this case: 11,596,310 won (unit price of 22,430 square meters per square meter): the aggregate of 25,929,080 won (i.e., 14,32,70 won 11,596,310 won) (i.e., 14,32,770 won), the fact that there was no dispute over the ground for recognition (i.e., 1,32,596, 310 won), Gap’s evidence No. 1, 2, Eul evidence No.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The amount of compensation recognized in the Plaintiff’s instant expropriation ruling and the appraisal of objection is lower than the amount of the officially assessed individual land price as of January 2016 of each of the instant land, and is thus unfair because it is excessively less than the amount of the assessed bond for the Gyeonggi-si G and H land owned by the Plaintiff, which was the original parcel of each of the instant land before subdivision, and thus, is unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.