수용보상금 청구의 소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by each person.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “34,435,101 won” in the fifth fiveth judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “34,435,010 won”; “36,65,010 won in the third and fourth parts of the court of first instance shall be read as “court of the court of first instance”; “this court” in the third and fourth parts below shall be read as “court of the court of first instance”; and in addition to the determination as to the allegations asserted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the first instance trial, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. A party’s assertion 1) The base point of time for calculating the Plaintiff’s director fee ought to be at the time of the project implementation authorization (see January 19, 2012), not at the date of the project implementation authorization (see January 19, 2012), but at the time of actual directors. 2) The base point of time for calculating the relocation cost of the Defendant’s housing should not be at the time of actual moving of the housing, but at the
B. Determination 1) In light of the fact that the obligation to pay director expenses to the owner of a residential building that is relocated following the implementation of the public works at the time of the public works as of the base date of the assessment of director expenses arises at the time of the public works project authorization, etc. or at the time of the public works under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for the public works (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du7475, Apr. 26, 2012; 2006Du2435, Apr. 27, 2006), the calculation of director expenses must be determined as of the date of the public announcement of the project authorization. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is lawful, and therefore, the base date of the calculation of the relocation expenses is without merit.