손실보상금
1. The Defendant: (a) 238,980 won to Plaintiff A; (b) 477,950 won to Plaintiff B; (c) 238,980 won to Plaintiff C; and (d) 477,950 won to Plaintiff D; and
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Project approval and the name of the public announcement of the project: An urban planning facility project operator (LG 2): The public announcement by the Defendant: Daegu Metropolitan City M, Daegu M, and September 30, 2016;
The date of expropriation on April 12, 2018 of the Central Land Expropriation Adjudication (Expropriation 17, 1410) by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on April 12, 2018: Land subject to expropriation on June 7, 2018: Each item of land specified in the attached Tables 3 (Indication of Land by Plaintiff) and the attached Tables 4 (Indication of Disturbance by Plaintiff) and compensation for losses for obstacles: Each item of compensation stated in the attached Table 2 shall be as follows
Appraisal Corporation: The Bank of Bankruptcy N and the Bank of Bankruptcy
다. 이의재결 중앙토지수용위원회의 2018. 9. 20.자 이의재결(18이중0197호) 이의재결 결과: 이의신청 기각 감정평가법인: ㈜P, ㈜Q
D. The result of the appraisal of compensation for losses by this court: Each "administrative litigation" shall be recorded in the attached Form 2.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 3, Eul's evidence 1, 10, 13, and 14 (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the appraisal commission to the appraiser R of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of compensation for determination, where there is a difference between the appraisal by an appraisal institution which forms the basis for adjudication and the appraisal by an appraiser selected by a court different from the appraisal by comparison of individual factors, etc., whether to choose any one of the appraisal shall, in principle, belong to the court's discretion;
(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2963 Decided November 12, 2015, etc.). According to each of the above evidence, the following evidence revealed that both the appraiser, the appraiser, and the appraiser of this court in the adjudication on acceptance of the instant case can legitimately calculate the amount of compensation subject to expropriation based on the officially assessed value of the comparative standard land pursuant to the relevant statutes, and there is no error in the evaluation methods. However, since the evaluation of the individual factors differs somewhat differently, this court has a different outcome.