수용보상금증액
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal and objection.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following additional determination, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Additional Decision] The plaintiff asserts that the adjudication and the court appraisal are unfair by selecting a place which has a reasonable distance from the land of this case as a comparative standard. Thus, the compensation for expropriation against the plaintiff should be increased.
Unless there are special circumstances, comparative standards shall give priority to specific use areas within an urban area; when there are several comparative standards for the same specific use area, the land category in the public record, surrounding environment, location, etc., the land identical or similar to the land subject to expropriation shall be selected as a comparative standard for the application of the relevant land, taking into account the characteristics of the land subject to expropriation, such as actual utilization, land category in the public record, surrounding environment, location, etc. In addition, even if there are some differences between the standard land area and the specific use area of the land subject to appraisal and the surrounding environment, such differences may be considered from the land comparison
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da64627 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). According to the result of the commission of appraisal to D by the court of first instance for D Co., Ltd., the result of the commission of appraisal by the court of first instance, as to D Co., Ltd., the overall purport of the pleadings, the comparative standard sheet selected by the court appraiser is the same as the land of this case in an urban area and its specific use area, land category, utilization status, surrounding environment, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that there were any errors in the selection of the comparative standard sheet by the court appraiser.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
2. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended by this court are without merit.