보상금증액
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of "decision on the plaintiff's argument" in Paragraph 2 as to the matters for which the plaintiffs asserted again in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' assertion of propriety
A. The court’s appraisal result of Plaintiff A’s assertion (hereinafter “the appraisal result of this case”) is unlawful in the following respect:
① The “U”, which is the land subject to the assessment owned by the Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) assessed the land conditions as prescribed above without any reasonable ground, even though the land conditions were superior to the “M” (hereinafter “M”) selected as the comparative standard as the result of the instant assessment (hereinafter “instant comparative standard land”).
② Although the Plaintiff’s land is more adjacent to the road than “W”, which is the adjacent land to be assessed, the Plaintiff’s land evaluated the gap rate of land A as 0.96 and 0.92 by evaluating the gap rate of land A by “W” as 0.96, while evaluating the difference rate of land A as 0.92.
③ From among the surrounding lands owned by the Plaintiff, S, T, etc., which are other lands owned by the Plaintiff A, are assigned to the Section A for the Dompination Project for the Domnnam Line, implemented by the Korea Rail Network Authority in 2009, and has been compensated for KRW 1,476,666 per square meter at the time. Considering the subsequent increase in land prices, the appraised value of the Plaintiff A among the appraisal results of the instant case shall be calculated less than
B. The remaining plaintiffs' assertion ① is located in the basis of the same living zone as the land to be assessed by the "P" while the "M" is located in the long distance from the land to the other living zone, and the "M" is located in the vicinity of the land to be assessed.