beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.10.31 2019구합10776

손실보상금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 6,035,150 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 5,132,750 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from June 15, 2018 to each of the said money.

Reasons

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Name of the project approval and that of the public announcement: Housing redevelopment project (C Housing Redevelopment Project) project implementer at the Government-si: Public announcement of authorization to implement the project of the defendant: D public notification at the Government-si on April 3, 2014;

B. Compensation for losses for each land, building, tree, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "subject to expropriation"): The date of commencement of expropriation indicated in the "compensation for expropriation" in each list of plaintiffs in the above list of plaintiffs by the local Land Tribunal of Gyeonggi-do as of April 30, 2018: The date of commencement of expropriation on June 14, 2018.

Compensation for losses by the Central Land Tribunal on January 24, 2019: Each statement in Gap's 3, 5, and 24 through 26 (including serial numbers for additional statements) and the purport of the whole pleadings, as stated in the column for "the amount of compensation for losses" in the table for each plaintiff listed in the table for each plaintiff listed in attached Table 1 as of January 24, 201.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The adjudication on the amount of compensation for the instant expropriated subject to expropriation does not meet the standards for fair compensation as prescribed by the relevant statutes. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the difference between the due compensation amount according to the appraisal of this court and the preservation of evidence in this case, and the compensation amount for delay, and the compensation amount for delay. 2) The defendant's assertion on delayed additional charges is not a legitimate application for adjudication to the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee without going through all consultation procedures with the plaintiffs who are the parties subject to cash settlement. Thus, the defendant cannot be said to be a legitimate application for adjudication. Thus, the defendant is the time 60 days after the date on which the plaintiffs requested the defendant to file an application for adjudication with the defendant pursuant to Article 30 (3) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land for Public Works (hereinafter "Land Compensation Act"), and the defendant is the expiration date of the first consultation period as of January 16, 2018.