Seoul ○○-gu ○○○ ○○

Law Firm Digital Ballast (Law Firm LLC, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Lee Lee-soo

Daejeon OOOOOOOOOO

representative chief director ○○○

Law Firm Korean Peninsula (Law Firm LLC)

Attorney Lee Dong-sung

A. Of the instant claims, the damages for losses incurred due to the decline in the value of the remaining land and the damages for delay shall be dismissed.

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 47, 127, 100 won with 5% per annum from April 22, 2009 to November 19, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

C. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1-b. above may be provisionally executed.

The defendant 171, 630, 100 won to the plaintiff and a copy of the complaint of this case from April 22, 2009 to the plaintiff

Until service date, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

H. H. H. H.D.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part

The dismissal is dismissed.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the reasons stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Of the instant claims, the determination on the instant damages for losses incurred due to the decline in the value of the remaining land, and on the instant damages for delay, as to the instant claims and the instant damages for delay

A. Main Safety Defenses

As to the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation of KRW 124,50,00 due to decline in the value of the remaining land of this case on the ground that the value of ○○○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○○○-dong, 141 square meters (hereinafter “the remaining land of this case”), which is one of the instant land due to the expropriation of the instant land, has fallen, the Defendant asserts that the said claim is unlawful without going through the adjudication procedure on the remaining land of this case.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as described in the "Related Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

Article 73 (1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) provides that “If the price of the remaining land is reduced or other losses are incurred due to the acquisition or use of part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner, or the construction of a passage, ditch, fence, etc. and other construction works are required on the remaining land, the project operator shall compensate for such losses or construction expenses under the conditions as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. In full view of the provisions of Articles 34, 50, 61, 73, and 83 through 85 of the Public Works Act and the legislative intent of Article 73 (1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, in order for the project operator to receive compensation for losses due to a decrease in the price of the remaining land under Article 73 of the Public Works Act, etc., and then the project operator may receive remedy for rights under Articles 83 through 85 of the Public Works Act only when he objects to such adjudication.

(4) If a landowner has gone through a ruling on indemnity for losses with respect to the remaining land which is not the land subject to expropriation, he may request the competent Land Tribunal to purchase the remaining land for the same purpose because of the acquisition or use of part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner, and if it is substantially difficult to use the remaining land for the same purpose because of the consultation, he may request the Land Tribunal to purchase the remaining land for the new expropriation because of the reduction of the value of the remaining land which is not the land subject to expropriation. (4) Even if the landowner may request for indemnity with respect to the new expropriation of the remaining land for the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the new expropriation of the existing land.

In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in the statement in public health room, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the plaintiff was made a ruling of expropriation related to compensation for the above 00 m2 m2 (the instant land), which is the land subject to expropriation, and it can be acknowledged that the above 00 m2 of the instant land, which is the remaining land of this case, did not undergo any adjudication as to the claim for purchase of the remaining land or compensation for losses due to the decline in the value of the remaining land. Accordingly, the plaintiff's lawsuit on the claim for compensation for losses of 124,50,000 won due to the decline in the value of the remaining land of this case, and the part on the claim for damages for delay, which is unlawful, since it did not go through the adjudication procedure.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is justified.

3. Determination on the claim to increase compensation for the instant land, which is the land subject to expropriation

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering the location, shape, and use of the land of this case, the compensation value is excessively low in light of the neighboring land value.

B. In fact, the instant land is located near the north of the Seoul ○○-dong, Seoul ○○○○-dong, and apartment and detached houses are mixed in the surrounding areas, and is designated as Class II general residential areas according to the land utilization plan.

(2) (1) With respect to the instant land, the appraiser for the adjudication selected as a comparative standard 136 meters as to the instant land. The amount of compensation was calculated by considering the structure, materials, size, phenomena and conditions of use, maintenance status, possibility of transfer, difficulty of transfer, etc. as set out in the appraisal table as follows. ② The appraiser for the adjudication on expropriation was assessed as the transfer cost in consideration of the structure, materials, size, situation and conditions of use, maintenance status, etc. of the instant building, but the amount of compensation was assessed as the acquisition cost if it is difficult to move or it is impossible to use the building for the previous purpose. (3) The appraiser (hereinafter referred to as the “court appraiser”) entrusted with the appraisal by the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as the “court appraisal result,” and the “court appraisal result”) selected a reference land as identical to the appraisal table, and calculated the amount of compensation by reflecting the same amount of compensation as the appraisal cost, 100 won x 300,000 won x 50,000 won.

[Attachment sheet] / [Ground for Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 2 to 4 (including branch numbers)

(1) Each entry, the appraisal result of an appraisal corporation at the court of first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings.

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the assertion that compensation is low in light of neighboring land values

According to the above facts, the adjudication and the court appraisal can be found to have lawfully calculated the compensation amount on the basis of the officially announced value of the comparative standard land in accordance with the relevant laws, such as the Public Works Act. Thus, no error is found to have been found in this regard. Since the appraisal value is lower than the market value of neighboring land, the appraisal cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that the appraisal value is lower than the market value of neighboring land

Meanwhile, the defendant asserts to the effect that the court's appraisal cannot be assessed based on the court's appraisal because the court's appraisal is inappropriate compared to the appraisal's appraisal's appraisal in the comparison standard and the land access condition, environmental condition, and the catch condition, etc. However, in a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, each appraisal and the court's appraisal which form the basis of the appraisal's appraisal should not be unlawful and there is no other difference in the appraisal's appraisal's appraisal's appraisal's appraisal's result different from the other appraisal's appraisal's appraisal's comparison's comparison's comparison's comparison's comparison's comparison's opinion, but there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in any one of the appraisal's comparison's appraisal's comparison's comparison's opinion, and thus trust in any one of the appraisal's each appraisal's appraisal's own discretion belongs to the court's fact-finding (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du2129, Mar. 26, 2009).

According to the court's appraisal, a reasonable compensation for the land of this case is KRW 1,069,00,00, and the above amount is KRW 47,127,100,00 ( = 1,069,080,000 - 1,021, 952, 900) more than the appraised amount.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 47, 127, 100 won as above and the damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 22, 2009, which is the day following the date of expropriation, until November 19, 2010, which is the date of the first instance judgment, and the date of full payment of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for compensation for losses incurred due to the decline in the value of the remaining land of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the claim for compensation for losses incurred due to the decline in the value of the remaining land of this case shall be accepted as well. The claim for compensation for losses of this case shall be accepted within the scope of recognition as above and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant's appeal and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified

Judges Anti-Mao

Judges Lee Young-sung

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.