수용재결취소등
1. The part of the instant lawsuit against Defendant Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's defendant.
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: Urban planning facility project (a) (a charnel, road, parking lot building project within the Seoul Park Cemetery, hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public announcement No. 2015-117, Jul. 2, 2015 - Project implementer No. 2015-117, Jul. 2, 2015; Defendant Song-park;
B. The Defendant Committee’s ruling of expropriation on October 12, 2015 (hereinafter “instant ruling”) - Land to be expropriated: As indicated in the list of real estate attached hereto.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). - Compensation for losses: 282,297,30 won - Date of expropriation: November 26, 2015: - An appraisal corporation: a foreign appraisal corporation, a foreign appraisal corporation, the unification appraisal corporation of the partnership for the settlement of disputes (hereinafter referred to as “each appraisal corporation”; hereinafter referred to as “each appraisal corporation”) / absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence 1 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The instant ruling with respect to the Defendant Committee is unlawful as it is based on each adjudication appraisal that was made by mistake in ascertaining the present situation of the instant land and in selecting a standard for comparison thereof, and should be revoked.
B. Each judgment on the defendant Song-park is excessive by calculating the amount of compensation for the land in this case at a maximum of 21 times compared to the officially assessed individual land price, and thus, reasonable compensation should be calculated and paid.
3. Whether the lawsuit against the Defendants is lawful
A. 1) The lawsuit against the Defendant Committee is not an assertion of illegality of the instant adjudication itself, but an increase or decrease in compensation, and thus, such lawsuit is brought against the project implementer. However, the Plaintiff’s filing of the lawsuit against the Defendant Committee is unlawful as it is against a person who is not qualified as a party. 2) The lawsuit against the Defendant Song Park ought to be reduced because of the excessive amount of compensation as determined by the instant adjudication.