beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.09.08 2015구합1213

수용보상금증액

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,716,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 19, 2015 to September 8, 2016.

Reasons

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: B housing redevelopment project - Project district: 20,722 square meters of land located in Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement zone”): Defendant - Project operator: public announcement D of Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on March 12, 2008, Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on March 27, 2013, Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on February 26, 2014, Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City public announcement on February 26, 2014, Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City public announcement on January 7, 2015, and H public announcement of Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on March 11, 2015.

B. Adjudication on expropriation by the Regional Land Tribunal of Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant adjudication on expropriation”): Land, obstacles, business rights, and the date of commencement of expropriation indicated in the column for “real estate subject to expropriation” listed in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff: May 8, 2015 - Contents of adjudication: The same shall apply to the column for “amount of adjudication on expropriation” listed in the attached Table.

C. The result of the request by the appraiser I of this Court - The content of the appraisal is as shown in the “court appraisal amount” column in the annexed sheet.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence, the result of this court's commission to appraiser I, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that compensation for losses under the expropriation ruling of this case is considerably lower than the market price, and thus, it should be increased. Thus, the court seek the difference between the legitimate compensation amount due to the result of the appraisal entrustment to appraiser I and the compensation amount recognized in the appraisal ruling of this case and the compensation for losses for delay.

B. Compensation for losses calculated at the time of the Defendant’s appraisal of the instant expropriation ruling is reasonable.

In particular, among the results of the appraisal commission to the appraiser I of this court, the estimated operating profit of the appraiser is without reasonable grounds.

3. Determination

A. According to Article 77(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects with respect to the criteria for calculating operating profits from the amount of business loss compensation.