손실보상금
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 18,785,00 for each of the KRW 18,785,00 for Plaintiff A and each of the KRW 37,536,00 for Plaintiff B and C; and (b) from January 13, 2016 to January 2016 for each of them.
1. Details of ruling;
(a) project approval and publication - Public Housing Project (D) - E published by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 26, 2010 - A project operator: Defendant;
(b) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation as of November 19, 2015 - Subject to expropriation: G volumeing 340 square meters for a F 340 square meters, Plaintiff B, and C’s ownership (each of the instant lands) owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”): The starting date of expropriation: January 12, 2016: Compensation for losses: KRW 854,760,000 for the Plaintiff, KRW 427,363,00 for the Plaintiff B, and C, and KRW 427,363,00 for each of the compensation for the Plaintiff, and KRW 427,363,00 for the Plaintiff: An appraisal corporation; an appraisal corporation; a corporation; a corporation; a corporation; a corporation; a corporation; a corporation; a corporation; a corporation; a corporation; a corporation; a corporation; (b) an appraisal corporation, which has no dispute over the issue of evidence No. 1 through 3; subparagraph 2-1, subparagraph 2, and evidence No. 1 through 2-4.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As a result of the court’s appraisal in the relevant dispute, the appraiser erred in the selection of a compensation example and the comparison with each of the instant land, and in revising other factors, there was an error of law by arbitrarily reducing the value of other factors calculated (if the two places are zero or five, then making the correction of the value of each of the instant land too low. 2) In addition, the “I large 340 square meters” owned by H located in the vicinity of each of the instant land (hereinafter “non-developed land”) was assessed as KRW 2,680,00/m2 as a result of the court’s appraisal in the relevant dispute case, and the court’s appraiser selected a comparative standard table as to each of the instant land and calculated the same individual difference, but it erred in the misapprehension of each of the instant land by erroneously selecting transaction cases during the process of correcting other factors.
3. Each land of this case shall be assessed as equivalent to the court's appraisal amount for comparative land, and the defendant shall be assessed.