손실보상금
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,862,50 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 19,792,50 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from June 15, 2013 to each of the said money.
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: C Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public announcement: The defendant on May 17, 2010; D public announcement of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 29, 2012; and Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government public notification E on November 29, 2012;
B. The Plaintiff A subject to expropriation on April 26, 2013: Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Regional Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “F land”) - Plaintiff B: 105 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “G land”) and 105 square meters in size (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): The date of expropriation: June 14, 2013 - The date of expropriation: 489,168,000 won (hereinafter “the instant obstacles”): 107,379,60 G land: 678,457,500 won: the appraisal corporation: the appraisal corporation and the appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal”) - the appraisal corporation and the appraisal corporation (hereinafter “the appraisal result”) - the Defendant deposit the same as the compensation for losses for each of the above 13 years and 103 years and 13 years and 103 years and 13 years and 19.13 years and 13 years, respectively.
The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on April 17, 2014 - The application for an objection filed by Plaintiff B is dismissed. - With respect to the instant obstacles in the amount of KRW 492,683,500: 108,109,50: the central appraisal corporation and the Alban appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “interest appraisal”; and hereinafter referred to as “adjudication on Expropriation”) - The fact that there is no dispute between the Central Appraisal Corporation and Alban appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Objection appraisal”) (based on recognition”), Gap’s evidence 1, 2, 3-2, 3-2, 4-1, 2, Eul’s evidence 4 through 7, 8-2, and 3-3, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Each judgment of the plaintiffs' assertion is unfair by excessively low evaluation of each of the lands of this case. Thus, the defendant should pay the difference between the plaintiffs' reasonable compensation amount and the reasonable compensation amount.
B. Determination 1) The result of this court’s entrustment of appraisal to appraiser H (hereinafter “court appraisal”) is the same.