손실보상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
1. The reasons why the court stated in the reasoning of the ruling, the results of appraisal, and this part of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as follows: (a) the portion of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff (as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance 5.8, 11, and 12, “the land of second issue” shall be dismissed as “the land of this case”; and (b) the result of the aerial diagnosis conducted on August 6, 2018 by the appraiser AB of the court of first instance shall be as stated in the attached Form 4 (as stated in the attached Form 4, the detailed part of the land of this case shall be classified as “daily number” in the attached Form 4); and (c) the 15th portion (based on recognition), except for the cases where “the result of the aerial diagnosis conducted on August 6, 2018 by the appraiser AB” is added, and therefore, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff (as stated in the attached Forms 9 through 5, 17, 111,2, 3, and 5).
2. Determination
A. The key point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that “The key land, etc. in this case should be assessed as a group of land” was withdrawn in the trial.
1) In the adjudication of expropriation and objection, the key land in this case owned by the Plaintiff was assessed as “previous”. However, the adjudication of expropriation and its appraisal result on the key land in this case, such as the part used as a housing site on the ground, including the key land in this case, should be evaluated as “site” and thus, it is unfair to assess the value of the land subject to expropriation and make an appraisal; thus, the Defendant shall additionally pay to the Plaintiff the reasonable compensation and the difference between the compensation based on the court appraisal result, etc. (2) but the court appraiser in the first instance court shall consider the land No. 13 as a 30.09 square meters of land among the key land in this case as a arable land, as a total of 293.18 square meters of land among the key land in this case and the total of 13 square meters of land. However, the land in this case constitutes a site, and thus, the area of the “site” in this case constitutes a total of 233.27 square meters of land (309 square meters prior to 208.29.28 square meters).38.28.208.