A. As to the Defendant’s KRW 388,939,900 and KRW 344,882,60 among them, the Defendant shall have the effect on January 1, 2009.

4. From February 10, 201 to September 21, 2012, for 44,057,300 won:

5%, 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(d)

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,024,445,020 won with 985,837,020 won from November 4, 2009 to 38,608,000 won with 5% per annum from February 10, 2010 to the date of the first instance judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the next order for payment shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 807,886,220 and KRW 759,13,670 with the amount of KRW 759,13,670 from November 4, 2009, KRW 48,752,550 per annum from February 10, 201 to the date of each judgment, and KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant among the judgment of the first instance. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

The reasons for this part are as follows: (a)(2)(b) of Paragraph (1) of the Reasons for the Judgment of the court of first instance that included the term ". 17 December 2009" as ". 9. 2, 2009", and "this court" as "the first instance court"; (b) "court appraisal" and "court appraiser" as "each appraisal of the first instance court" and "each appraisal of the first instance court" as "each appraisal of the first instance court", and (f) inserting the following contents as "each appraisal of the first instance court"; and (b) this court's entrustment of appraisal to the non-party of this court (hereinafter "the non-party of the first instance court's entrustment of appraisal") and the result of its entrustment of appraisal is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Reasons for the Judgment of the first instance except for the addition of "the non-party of the appraiser" as "the party of the first instance court's entrustment of appraisal" and "the result of its entrustment of appraisal" as "the party appraisal.

“... The appraisal of the trial.”

(1) As of the date of each decision on expropriation prior to the expropriation of the instant land, each of the compensation for losses was calculated as follows.

(1) A Gun automatic Gun (number 5 omitted) Forest land: 245 square meters, gold 56,105,000 won.

(2) A Si-Gun automatic road (number 6 omitted) 871 square meters and a 65,847,600 won in cases of a de facto gambling, and a gold-19,459,00 won in cases of a scheduled public map.

(3) 2,402,100 won in cases of a road with 17 square meters of a Gun automatic road (number 7 omitted), and a 6,51,800 won in cases of a non-use site, and 6,55,800 won in cases of a non-use site.

(4) 79m2, gold 24,503,500 square meters prior to Si-Gun automatic (number 8 omitted), Si-si (44m2,00 square meters used as “electric”), gold 19,404,000 square meters, and gold 5,09,500 square meters used as “road”

(5) A Gun automatic Gun (number 9 omitted) Forest land: 493 square meters, gold 87,803,300 won.

(6) Automatic Si/Gun (number 10 omitted) Forest land 2,079 square meters, gold 357,172,200 won.

(7) A 1,581 square meters of forest land and 274,307,300 square meters of forest land and 1,438 square meters of forest land used as “forest” (265,598,600 square meters of forest land and 143 square meters of forest land used as “road” shall be 8,708,700 square meters of forest land and 274,307,300 square meters of forest land in Si-si

(2) As of September 10, 2009, September 10, 2009, each of the compensation for losses as of the date of expropriation decision, which was the date of the request for expropriation of the remaining land and remaining buildings in this case, was calculated as shown in the following

In the case of expropriation of the marking of the instant divided items included in the main text, the compensation amount shall be KRW 50,676,000,000,000 for 330 square meters for Si-Gun automatic (number 2 omitted) Si-Gun automatic (number 22,650,000,000,000 for Si-Gun automatic (number 4 omitted) No. 101,905,000,000 for Si-Gun automatic land (number 4 omitted) No. 445,00 shall be KRW 19,236,00 for Si-Gun automatic (number 3 omitted) road (number 19,41,200,00 for Si-Gun automatic land (number 2 omitted) and KRW 4,275,600,00 for Si-Gun automatic land (number 4 omitted).

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

After receiving the instant written objection around December 2009, on January 19, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim for compensation for losses due to the expropriation, compensation, or price decrease of the remaining land and the remaining buildings at the time of filing the instant lawsuit on January 19, 201, only when submitting an application for alteration of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on March 14, 201. As such, the above portion of the claim is unlawful in that it exceeds the period of filing the lawsuit. In addition, the Plaintiff filed a claim for expropriation of the remaining land and the remaining buildings in this case under the instant written adjudication on expropriation and objection, and did not separately file a claim for compensation for losses due to price decrease. Therefore, the compensation for losses due to price decrease of the remaining land and the remaining buildings in this case is unlawful without undergoing the adjudication procedure.

B. Determination

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case within 30 days from the date of receipt of the instant objection as to the remaining land and the remaining building in the instant adjudication of acceptance and objection, and all of them were dismissed. The Plaintiff asserted that the complaint of this case, which did not accept the claim for expropriation of the remaining land of this case or the claim for compensation for losses due to price decrease, was unlawful, and that just compensation should be extended in the future according to the result of appraisal and claim for 6,000,000 won first, but the purport of the claim including the compensation for expropriation of the remaining land of this case and the remaining building or the compensation for losses due to price decrease is apparent in the record, in accordance with the first instance judgment.

Therefore, the compensation for expropriation of the remaining land and the remaining buildings or the compensation for losses due to a decrease in the price were included in the claim of this case from the time the lawsuit of this case was filed. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the above claim of this case was unlawful after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit of

In addition, Articles 73 and 74 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) provide that a project operator shall compensate for losses if the price of the remaining land has been reduced due to the acquisition or use of part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner. Compensation for such losses cannot be claimed one year after the completion date of construction. If it is substantially difficult to use the remaining land for its original purpose because part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner is purchased or expropriated through consultation, the relevant landowner may request the project operator to purchase the remaining land. After the completion date of construction of the project, the relevant land owner may request the competent Land Tribunal to expropriate the remaining land until the completion date of construction of the project. Article 75-2 of the Public Works Act provides that a claim for expropriation and compensation for losses due to price reduction of the remaining land or remaining building is different from the above requirements, but it is not easy to view that the remaining land is not subject to compensation for losses due to a decrease in the existing price or remaining building due to the lack of the land owner's claim for adjudication.

3. Determination as to the claim for the increased amount of compensation for the land expropriated in this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant accommodation land is used as a parking lot for restaurants located on the first floor of the instant remaining building in Si-si, Si-si, Si-si, and Si-si, and thus, it should not be evaluated as a private road, such as a ruling that is not evaluated as a parking lot site or as a so-called scheduled public road (referring to a land actually being used for many unspecified persons without implementation of the relevant urban planning facility project after being determined as an urban planning facility project. The concept used in the Land Compensation Evaluation Guidelines prepared by the Korea Appraisal Association (hereinafter “Korea Land Appraisal Association”) and should not be evaluated as a de facto private road. Moreover, the reasonable amount of compensation for the remaining expropriated land should be calculated in accordance with the current assessment which is more reasonable than the appraisal

B. Determination

(1) Evaluation of 871 square meters on a Gun automatic road (6 omitted)

As a result of the fact-finding on the instant 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 4 were located in the 5-meter of the said 4-meter, and the number of 5-meter of the said 5-meter of the said 4-meter of the instant 5-meter of the land was divided into 5-meter of the said 4-meter of the said 5-meter, and the fact-finding on the first instance court’s fact-finding on the 1,975-meter of the instant land, all of which were owned by the Plaintiff and the remaining land were divided into 1,975-meter of the instant 4-meter of the instant land, and the said 9-meter of the instant land was divided into 5-meter of the said 4-meter of the said 4-meter of the said land, and the said 30-meter of the instant land was divided into 9-meter of the said 5-meter of the said land, and the said 95-meter of the forest land was omitted.

Article 26 (2) Item 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act provides that a road other than a private road under the Private Road Act (excluding a road being used as a road after being determined as a road by the urban management plan under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act) refers to a road falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and subparagraph 1 provides that a landowner at the time of the construction of a road directly installs a road for the convenience of his own land, subparagraph 2 provides a road for the convenience of his own land, and subparagraph 2 provides a road for which the landowner cannot restrict the passage of others by his own will. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s land category of a military automatic lot number (number 3 omitted) is changed to a private road for the convenience of other land owned by the Plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the above land constitutes a land for which the passage of others cannot be restricted by the Plaintiff’s will, and it cannot be deemed that there are any other objective reasons to make compensation for the said land at a price specially lower than that of neighboring land, and thus, it cannot be evaluated as a price-off from the above land (i.

(2) The reasonable amount of compensation for the instant expropriated land

According to the appraisal results of the plaintiff 1, 200 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m30 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m30 m20 m20 m30 m20 m20 m20 m30 m20 m20 m20 m20 m30 m20 m20 m20 m30 m20 m20 m20 m20 m30 m20 m20 m30 m20 m20 m30 m20 m20 m20 m30 m30 m30 m20 m20 m30 m30 m25 m204 m205 m209 m30

4. Determination on the claim for compensation for expropriation of the remaining land and remaining buildings in this case or compensation for losses due to a decrease in prices

This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

A. On-the-spot No. 8 and 9 of the first instance court shall be the first instance court. On-the-spot No. 9 and 21 of the same part shall be the expert witness of the first instance court. On-the-spot No. 9 of the same part, “the result of this court’s on-the-spot verification” shall be inserted in the “the result of this court’s on-the-spot verification,” and the part shall be deleted from “the point from which it cannot be seen.”

B. No. 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be added as follows.

Article 75-2 of the Public Works Act and Article 35 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that an appraiser of the first instance trial and the first instance trial shall be deemed to have assessed the amount of compensation due to a decrease in the price of the remaining land from the basic date to the date of price based on the officially announced value of reference land deemed to have a value similar to the remaining land of this case, by comprehensively taking into account the factors such as the fluctuation rate, location, shape, environment, utilization status, and other factors for price formation, and the level of neighboring land price into account. However, the appraisal and assessment of compensation for losses due to a decrease in the price of the remaining land of this case is more appropriate and consistent with the situation. Meanwhile, the remaining building which shall be compensated for losses due to a decrease in the price of the remaining land of this case pursuant to Article 75-2 of the same Act and Article 35 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act refers to a building remaining due to the acquisition or use of part of a group of buildings belonging to the same owner, and thus, the remaining building of this case does not constitute a decrease in the remaining building of this case 200.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 34,882,60 won with the exception of 388,939,90 won (249.021,80 won + 139,918,100 won) and 44,057,300 won (27,300 won - 230,2500 won) with due compensation for forest land 1,581m2 (11 omitted) and 44,057,300 won (27,300 won - 230,250,000 won) with due compensation for forest land 1,581m2 and 34,82,600 won (24,800 won from the date following the date of commencement of expropriation of the above land excluding the above land, and the defendant shall not be obliged to pay damages for delay from the date following the date of expropriation to February 10, 2010 for the remainder of the judgment of the court below.

Judges Kim Chang-chul (Presiding Judge) and Yang Chang-chul