토지수용보상금증액
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who was the owner of the Dong-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City C (hereinafter “instant expropriated land”), and the Defendant is a project implementer established for the purpose of housing redevelopment improvement project and whose project implementation area is 59,535 square meters in Gwangju Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City.
(b) Project name 1) Project name: A public announcement of B-Housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant project”): A public announcement on April 30, 2015, the project implementer of the Dong-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City, Gwangju Metropolitan City, and the Dong-gu public announcement on March 18, 2016: Defendant 2) the expropriation ruling of May 27, 2016 by the Seoul Metropolitan City Land Tribunal (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”).
(A) Objects to be expropriated: The date of commencing the expropriation of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”) and the instant housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) and the goods on the ground (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “the instant land” together with the instant housing): Compensation for land compensation of KRW 97,285,650 (C) (i.e., July 11, 2016): Compensation for land compensation of KRW 97,285,650 (i.e., KRW 91,149,300 of the instant land of KRW 195 square meters (i.e., KRW 6,136,350 of the instant land); Compensation for the land of KRW 23,35,500 of the instant land of KRW 23,641,50 of the instant land of KRW 195 square meters (hereinafter “compensation for land”).
C. On June 17, 2016, the Defendant deposited KRW 120,641,150 as the Gwangju District Court No. 3678 with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit in Gwangju District Court (hereinafter “instant deposit”).
The Plaintiff filed an objection to the adjudication on expropriation of the instant case with the Central Land Expropriation Committee’s objection, but the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s objection on December 22, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 15, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the portion of 33 square meters out of the instant land is a de facto private road.