보상금증액청구의 소
1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,366,200 as well as 5% per annum from December 14, 2018 to March 10, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Project name: B development project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”);
2) Public notice of authorization for project implementation: The Defendant
B. The subject matter of expropriation by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal as of October 29, 2018: D 657 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).
2) As to the land of this case, E field No. 147 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”)
2) Compensation: 457,074,000 won ( KRW 373,504,500 of the instant land No. 1), the date of expropriation: (a) December 13, 2018; (b) compensation for an objection raised on August 22, 2019 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee; KRW 464,832,60 ( KRW 379,84,550 of the instant land No. 1); KRW 22 appraisal corporation: F and corporation G
(d) Compensation for the appraised amount of compensation according to the result of a court appraisal: 490,198,800 won (the ground for recognition of the land No. 1 of this case) / [the land No. 2 of this case No. 89,625,900 won] / The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 and No. 2 of this case (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of a commission of appraisal by appraiser H (I appraiser office) by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings;
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. Since the appraisal of the Plaintiff’s assertion was erroneous in failing to properly reflect the market price of each land of this case, the compensation for losses for each land of this case should be increased according to the court’s appraisal result, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff additional compensation corresponding to the difference between the reasonable compensation amount according to the court’s appraisal result and the compensation amount for the objection.
B. In a lawsuit concerning an increase or decrease of one compensation, each appraisal by each appraisal agency, which forms the basis of the ruling, and the appraisal by the court appraiser, has no illegality in the assessment methods, and the remaining factors for price assessment, excluding individual factors and vision, are consistent with each other, but they are individual factors and vision.