건물등수용에 대한 보상금 증액 청구
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the main claim expanded in the trial and the conjunctive claim added in the trial.
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business Approval and Public Notice - Project Development Project for the Haban General Industrial Complex - Notice No. 2008-238 of June 12, 2008, No. 2008-257 of June 19, 2008, No. 2008-247 of November 6, 2008, No. 2009-474 of September 17, 2009, No. 2009-570 of November 19, 2009, and No. 2010-105 of March 11, 2010
(b) Project operator: Defendant;
C. Decision on expropriation made on July 27, 2010 by the Gyeongnam-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee - Subject to compensation: obstacles, such as buildings for ground factories (hereinafter “instant factories”) and machinery, equipment (hereinafter “instant machinery”), etc. on the Gyeongan-gun Gun Private Road 1120-4 (hereinafter “instant factories”), and business losses for Aluminium manufacturing business operated by the Plaintiff at the above factories (hereinafter “instant business”): 3,019,094,700 won (i.e., compensation for obstacles 2,648,904,70 won): 370,190,000 won (i.e., compensation for obstacles 2,648,904,700 won) - Date of expropriation: September 9, 2010 - Date of expropriation: Appraisal Corporation 3330,190,000 won
D. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on February 18, 201 - Contents of the ruling: 3,120,642,970 won (i.e., the compensation in this case’s KRW 2,737,047,970) increased to KRW 383,595,000 for business compensation of an obstacle (i.e., the compensation in this case’s KRW 2,737,047,97,970) - The appraisal institution: the Sam Chang Chang Corporation and the Pacific Appraisal Corporation
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s instant business cannot obtain permission, etc. for the pertinent business, or it is virtually impossible to transfer the pertinent business to another place in another place in the territory of the Si/Gun where the Plaintiff is located. As such, the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”).
(2) The Defendant falls under the discontinuance of business prescribed in Article 46 of the Enforcement Rule, and thus, the Defendant constitutes the discontinuance of business prescribed in the former Public Works Act (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 201).
Article 75 (1) and Article 46 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall apply to the factory of this case.