손실보상금청구
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the judgment of the first instance, except for the case to be cited by the court below, and thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary part] The 3th 15th Myeon-15 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be the "the first instance court".
The 3th judgment of the first instance court, the 16th judgment, "this court", shall be deemed "the first instance court and this court".
The second two pages of the judgment of the court of first instance are different from each other as "on the basis of this, the evaluation base date on January 14, 2010," respectively.
If the judgment of the court of first instance 6th, “the base date for evaluation of April 2, 2015” is deemed to be “the base date for evaluation of professional engineers H on April 2, 2015, based on the appraisal that was made on April 2, 2015 as the base date for evaluation and again, the base date for evaluation shall be deemed to be January 14, 2010.”
In the first instance judgment, “The amount of compensation is appraised as of April 2, 2015, which was at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, although the amount of compensation is appraised as of April 2, 2015, which was at the time of the adjudication of expropriation,” as follows: “Although the amount of compensation is appraised as of October 19, 2012, which was at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, it shall be appraised as of April 2, 2015, which was at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, or as of January 14, 2010, which was more retroactively than the time of the adjudication of expropriation.”
In the first instance judgment, 7th 7th 7th h.m. “M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M.
The 9th judgment of the first instance court is based on the fact that the evaluation was conducted on the 9th judgment as “a fact that was conducted.”
In accordance with the above evidence, the first instance court's 10th 2 to 7th 7th - the first court's appraisal should be adopted.
'The parts' have been cut to the following:
Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 9, it is recognized that prudent tank (35) was created by the association of I University and the facultyJ from among the Buddhist facilities in the instant case, and the first court appraiser shall be the Korean Buddhist art and hearing institute.