손실보상금 증액
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: “No person shall see the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance” in Chapter 8 of the fifth decision of the court of first instance, and this shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for addition of the following supplementary judgments as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance, inasmuch as the land category on the public register of the land of this case is still a “forest” even around November 18, 2013, which is the starting date of expropriation of the land of this case.
[Judgment of the court below] In light of the fact that a bank had already existed in the vicinity of the land of this case even if the bank was implemented as a public project in around 1972 as the plaintiff's assertion, it is reasonable to see that the land of this case as of 1972 was excluded from a river, and the land of this case as at the time of 1972 is "river". However, the court below's assertion that it is improper to employ appraisal results assessed based on the current state of use (road, arable land, grassland, sand, etc.) as of 1969 at the time of 1969. However, according to the appraisal result of the first instance appraiser H of the court of first instance, the bank that existed in the vicinity of the land of this case was located in around 1969 is a soil embankment, and the land of this case cannot be seen as being used in the same part as the land of this case at the time of 197 square meters at the time of the execution of the land of this case.
2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is presented.