수용재결취소 등
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
With respect to this case cited in the judgment of the first instance, the reasoning of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
◎ 제1심 판결문 제3면 제10행을 다음과 같이 고친다.
d. Written expert witness at the trial (hereinafter referred to as "court expert witness").
(2) The appraisal result (hereinafter referred to as “court appraisal”)
) 법원감정인은 ‘서울 성북구 X 지상의 다세대주택 중 구분건물인 제2층 I호에 관한 2012. 9. 17.자 거래사례’를 거래비교사례로 채택한 다음 가치형성요인의 비교를 거쳐, 원고 A 소유 각 구분건물에 관한 손실보상금을 합계 494,000,000원으로, 원고 B에 대한 손실보상금을 173,000,000원으로 각 산정하였다. [인정 근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제4 내지 6호증의 각 기재, 이 법원의 법원감정인에 대한 감정촉탁결과, 변론 전체의 취지』 ◎ 제1심 판결문 제4면 제3행부터 제5면 표까지를 다음과 같이 고친다.
The first floor (hereinafter referred to as "non-sectioned building"), which is a partitioned building, among multi-household houses on the ground of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, located in the date of approval for use (level of aging), structure, transportation conditions, surrounding environment, etc., compared to the subject matter of expropriation in this case.
Although the transaction cases were selected as comparative transaction cases, there was an error of evaluating or assessing the subject matter of expropriation in a lower level than the comparable building in comparison with the comparative transaction factors. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiffs the difference between the compensation for losses and the adjudication of compensation for losses by the court’s appraisal as indicated below, i.e., the amount of KRW 50,250,000 (=494,000, - 443,750,000) for the Plaintiff A, and the amount of KRW 11,70,000 for the Plaintiff B (=173,00,000,000 - 161,30,000,000 for each of these losses.