손해배상(기)
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 implementer that carries out the E construction project (hereinafter “instant project”) in Gangseo-si Bri, Ri, and Ddong, and the Plaintiff is the owner of the land and buildings indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant land and buildings”) located within the said project area.
B. On March 18, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Central Land Expropriation Committee on March 18, 2016, because it did not reach an agreement with the Plaintiff, who was the owner of the instant land and building, and the Central Land Expropriation Committee on May 26, 2016 (i.e., “the Defendant expropriated the instant land, and (ii) the compensation for expropriation was KRW 161,058,200 (=land 126,072,50 obstacles and KRW 34,985,70). The date of commencement of expropriation was determined on June 27, 2016.
On the other hand, compensation for the obstacles, etc. of this case constitutes a case where the cost of transfer exceeds the price of the goods pursuant to the proviso of Article 75(1)2 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Act”), and thus, the price of the goods was determined.
C. On June 23, 2016, the Defendant deposited KRW 161,058,200 for the above confinement compensation by deeming the Plaintiff as the principal deposit in this Court No. 1429, supra. < Amended by Act No. 14290, Jun. 23, 2016>
On November 24, 2016, the Central Land Tribunal made an objection against the above ruling to increase the amount of KRW 1,593,460 to KRW 162,651,660 (i.e., KRW 127,531,00 obstacles to land) (i.e., KRW 35,120,660). The Defendant deposited KRW 1,593,460, which was increased by gold No. 9, Jan. 5, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 8 (including those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Around August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted and determined that the Defendant mined standing timber, such as dump, dump, omitted from compensation by using dumpers on the instant land, and damaged the banner, thereby causing property damage. On August 15, 2016, the Plaintiff cut off fump of dumpers omitted from compensation by using one dump dump dump, which was omitted from compensation. 9.