토지수용보상금증액
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The defendant of the purport of the claim shall make the plaintiff 82,032.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The 3rd and 8th and 9th of the first instance court are as follows.
“(1) Since the Plaintiff provided the instant land that was a site as part of the Saemaul Movement Project around 1972 as a road, the price of the instant land ought to be assessed on the premise that the present status is the site.”
(b) to 20 pages 3, 12, and 20, the part of the relevant laws and regulations should be deleted.
(c) From the last 3 pages of the judgment of the first instance to 5 pages 3 are as follows.
“Inasmuch as the present situation at the time of the adjudication on expropriation of the instant land is a road, it is reasonable to assess the price of the instant land on the premise that the present situation is a road, and it cannot be assessed on the premise that the present situation is a site solely for the reasons alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.”
2. If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.