수용재결취소등
1. The plaintiff's action against the Central Land Expropriation Committee shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's defendant agricultural company.
1. Details, etc. of ruling;
(a) Project approval and the name of the public announcement of the project: The project implementer of the urban planning facility project in Namyang-si (urban planning facility project (road E; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): The public announcement of the authorization for the project implementation of the Plaintiff: the “F ( November 3, 2016), the G ( June 29, 2017), the public announcement of the Namyang-si, the H ( October 19, 2017), the public notification of the Namyang-si, and the public notification I ( November 9, 2017);
B. Subject to the expropriation ruling by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee on March 26, 2018: 174 shares of Defendant Incorporated Company B and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) among the area of 248 square meters in Nam-si, Namyang-si: The date of expropriation of KRW 80,445,00 (hereinafter “instant land”): The opinion of Defendant Company on May 10, 2018: 136 square meters prior to Nam-si (hereinafter “1 remaining land”), among the shares of Defendant Company 1392 square meters prior to J, Nam-si, the total area of remaining land is not 174 square meters (hereinafter “2 remaining land”) and the total area of remaining land is 100 square meters and 174 square meters (hereinafter “the remaining land area of each of the instant land”) and the total area of the remaining land is 30 percent or less of the previous land and 1394 square meters of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Compensation for the remaining Land (hereinafter “the remaining land area of each of this case”).
The contents of the ruling on the claim for expropriation of remaining land: It cannot be deemed significantly difficult to use each remaining land of this case in accordance with its original purpose, considering the location, shape, utilization status, specific use area, etc. of each remaining land of this case.
C. Defendant Company’s objection to the ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on January 24, 2019.