손실보상금
1. The Defendant: (a) to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 51,313,940; (c) KRW 8,08,200 to Plaintiff B; (d) KRW 5,90,940 to Plaintiff C; and (e) KRW 3.0 to Plaintiff D.
1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;
(a) Business name - Business name: The outline of the urban development project (O District Urban Development Project (Ij) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”): The defendant, who is the PP on April 12, 2013 of Gyeonggi-do and the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice Q-Project implementer on September 11, 2014
B. The ruling of expropriation made on May 30, 2016 by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal - The date of expropriation: July 14, 2016: The Plaintiffs’ ownership located in the instant project area (attached Form 1) [Attachment 1] “object of Expropriation” (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) - Compensation: (Attachment 1) the same shall apply.
- Appraisal Corporation: S. & T.
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on January 19, 2017 - Compensation: The phrase “award compensation” is indicated in attached Form 2.
(However, an objection against the land owned by Plaintiff F and H was dismissed) - An appraisal corporation: U.S. and V.
D. The result of the appraiser W’s appraisal (hereinafter “the result of the court’s appraisal”) and the result of the appraiser’s supplementation (hereinafter “the result of the court’s appraisal”) on March 2, 2018 - The result of the court’s appraisal (hereinafter “the result of the court’s supplementary appraisal”) - The result of the court’s appraisal: as shown in attached Form 3.
[1] The land of the king X land owned by the Plaintiff church, hereinafter referred to as the "1st issue").
) On the premise that it is “forest land”, Plaintiff F-owned land Y (hereinafter “Plaintiff F-owned land”) is called “second-class land.”
(A) A. : The result of the court appraisal supplement on March 2, 2018: (a) the premise that the land in question was used as a site for the first place of land 207,269,940 won (the 307.61 square meters in the first place of land, which is not an illegal alteration of the form and quality) and the land in question owned by the Plaintiff F, Z, Y, AA (hereinafter “second-class land, etc.”) 628, 335,90 won in the second place of land in question, etc. (hereinafter “second-class land, etc.”) on the premise that the land in question was used as a site.
B. However, according to the result of the fact-finding inquiry conducted by W on November 20, 2018, the amount of the property which was re-determined due to an error in the appraisal of this part is KRW 790,743,400).