토지수용보상금
1. The part concerning the claim for agricultural loss compensation among the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall pay 8,900,000 won to the plaintiff and this shall apply.
1. Details, etc. of ruling;
(a) Project name and public notice of project approval: A public notice of project approval for an urban planning facility project (B) (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): A public notice of April 30, 2015 at port C, D public notice of April 11, 2016 at port, and E public notice of December 30, 2016 at port: Defendant
B. The adjudication on expropriation (see, e.g., Table) of 149,520,000 square meters in total, 149,520,000 won in expropriation on September 29, 2017 by the local Land Tribunal of Gyeongbuk-do, the local Land Tribunal of Gyeongbuk-do, which is subject to the adjudication on expropriation on expropriation as of September 29, 2017, G 238 square meters and H 17 square meters in G, G 238 square meters in 238 square meters in G, J 36 square meters in G, J 62 square meters in G, and L 109 square meters in J. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”): An appraisal corporation, M. and N. on November 20, 2017:
(c) An objection against the ruling of expropriation rendered by the Central Land Tribunal on February 22, 2018: An appraisal corporation and a stock company P shall have increased the total amount of compensation for each of the instant lands to KRW 151,015,200:
D. According to the court’s appraisal result as a result of the appraisal commission for Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “court appraisal result”), the adequate value of each of the instant lands was assessed as KRW 159,915,200 in total as indicated below as of September 29, 2017, which was the date of the expropriation ruling.
G 49,980,000 50,80 53,479,800 53,454,800 2,975,000 H 37,170,000 37,541,700 39,754,200 2,212,500 7,560,000 7,635,600 8,605,6085,600 450,000 J 13,020,000 13,150,200,200 13,9250, 2005, 2005, 209, 2005, 209, 2005, 209, 2000,20222,890, 200,194, 2008,309
2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit claiming agricultural loss compensation is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was a rice farmer in each of the instant land by 2012, and each of the instant land from around 2013 to 2016 is the good farmland.