손실보상금
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is to dismiss each “this court” as “court of first instance,” and the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance, except for adding “judgment on the Defendant’s argument” as follows. Thus, it is to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the defendant's argument of the trial
A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The court’s appraisal was unlawful not only because it did not present specific evaluation criteria for the access to the instant land, environment, and land conditions, but also did not present specific grounds for the noise and sunshine change on the instant remaining land. (2) The regulation under the Railroad Safety Act does not exist on December 9, 2013, which is the time of price assessment for the instant remaining land, but is applied after the construction of the instant land, but also on the regulation under the Railroad Safety Act, as it is separately compensated pursuant to Article 46 of the Railroad Safety Act, the court’s appraisal did not require consideration in calculating the compensation for the remaining land. However, the court’s appraisal reflected the regulation under the Railroad Safety Act in duplicate on administrative terms and other conditions.
B. 1) Determination of the first assertion 1) In assessing the amount of compensation for the expropriation and use of land, all the factors cited in the relevant laws and regulations shall be reflected by taking into account all the factors of calculation specifically and comprehensively. However, even if the detailed portion of all calculation factors does not include the detailed portion of the assessment factors or the numerical impact on the assessment factors, there is an explanation to the extent that the factors are specified and clarified and the degree of consideration by each factor can objectively be paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2727, Jun. 28, 2002).