손실보상금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a project operator who has obtained approval [this case’s business E (No. 29, Oct. 29, 2015) from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy (hereinafter “instant business”) of the implementation plan for the electric power source development business that constructs two power generation facilities from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and the Plaintiff owned each land and its ground (hereinafter “instant dispute”) listed in the attached Table 1 list.
B. On June 8, 2017, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff to acquire the land to be incorporated in the project after approval of the project implementation plan of the instant case, but did not reach an agreement, and the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered an application for adjudication on the expropriation of the land as KRW 904,640,50 for the land, and KRW 371,325,850 for the obstacles.
C. The Plaintiff asserted an increase in compensation for the said adjudication on expropriation, but the Central Land Tribunal dismissed the said objection in the adjudication on January 25, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff used a significant portion of the instant land as a site for a stock farm, and as a result, it is impossible to transfer the land to the Gangseo-si or neighboring Si/Gun due to the adjudication of expropriation, the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”).
(2) Even if it is not so, compensation for business closure should be made pursuant to Article 46 of the Enforcement Rule, since compensation for the land and obstacles in this case at the time of the adjudication of expropriation was assessed low, the defendant is appropriate for the dispute in this case to the plaintiff.