손해배상
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 14, 2005, the Defendant is a project implementer of the project approval and public notice as the project approval B of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (amended to C of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on July 22, 2008) and the project announcement, and the Plaintiff is a person who installed a warehouse similar to a plastic house by means of steel pipe and tent, etc., and kept military equipment, building materials, etc., such as military uniforms, in Seoul, Jung-gu E and F land (the land above E is land in G, and the land F is land divided from H land; hereinafter “instant land”) located within the project site of this case.
B. On September 10, 2009, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation that “the Defendant shall accept the project site including the instant land for the instant project, transfer things indicated in the separate sheet, and compensate for losses shall be KRW 1,735,640,020.” Of them, the compensation for losses for the goods indicated in the separate sheet was KRW 25,810,000. Upon raising an objection against the said ruling of expropriation, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of objection on February 4, 2010 that increased the compensation for losses for the said goods to KRW 26,580,000.
C. Upon the Plaintiff’s refusal to receive the compensation for expropriation in accordance with each of the above rulings, the Defendant deposited the Plaintiff as the principal deposit and deposited KRW 25,810,000 as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 4616, Nov. 2, 2009; and KRW 770,000 as the remainder of the compensation in March 17, 2010 at the same court No. 674, Mar. 201.
In each of the above rulings, the Plaintiff did not transfer the attached list to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, on November 12, 2009 and on February 26, 2009, ordered the Plaintiff to conduct vicarious execution.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not transfer the above goods, and the Defendant concluded a service contract related to vicarious execution with the service company (I and representativeJ) around December 18, 2009, and then concluded the service contract related to vicarious execution on December 21, 2009.