손실보상금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 4,507,600 as well as 15% per annum from January 1, 2016 to the date of complete payment.
1. Details of the disposition;
(a) Business name and public notice - Business name - Business name B Housing Redevelopment rearrangement Project - Public notice: Defendant: C public notice of the Gyeongnam-do on February 11, 2010, D public notice of Dong Young-si on December 27, 2012, E public notice of Dong Young-si on September 13, 2013, F public notice of Dong Young-si on January 15, 2015:
(b) Expropriation adjudication - Land subject to expropriation - G 18 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and its ground obstacles (see attached Table ): 61,973,500 won [the compensation for the instant land 59,383,500 won for the damages on May 22, 2015] - Compensation for the damages: 61,973,500 won [the compensation for the damages on the instant land 59,383,500 won for the damages on the instant land 2,590,000 won for the damages on the ground (the 150,000 won for each tree 150,00 won for each land)
(c) The contents of the adjudication - The amount of compensation for losses for the land in this case increased to 59,896,800 won, and the amount of compensation for losses for the previous obstacles to the ground: 62,486,800 won (the amount of compensation for losses for the land in this case 59,896,800 won)
(d) Court appraisal - Contents of appraisal - Assessment of compensation for losses for the land of this case as 64,404,400 won, and exclusion of the appraisal from the appraisal due to loss or destruction at the time of the on-site investigation on the part of the above ground obstacles [based on recognition] Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, result of appraisal entrustment to appraiser H by this court, purport of whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Since the Plaintiff’s compensation for objection on the instant land and its ground obstacles was assessed to be lower than the reasonable compensation, the Plaintiff sought payment of the money stated in the purport of the claim, which is the difference between the reasonable compensation for each of the said lands and the compensation for the said ruling.
B. In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of the amount of compensation for expropriation, where both the result of the adjudication and the result of the court appraisal are not unlawful in the methods of appraisal, and there is no evidence to prove that there is any error in the contents of the appraisal, the fact-finding court’s trust of any one of the results of each appraisal.