토지수용에 대한 보상금 증액 청구의 소
1. The Defendant’s KRW 34,109,50, and KRW 40,952,640 for each of the Plaintiff C and B, and its respective of them from May 31, 2017.
1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;
(a) Business authorization and public notice - Public housing project (D Zone ; hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) - E published by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 26, 2010 - A project operator: Defendant
(b) The date of adjudication on expropriation - The date of adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee: November 19, 2015 - The date of commencement of expropriation - January 12, 2016 - Each land indicated in the column for “subject to expropriation” in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiffs located in the instant project area (hereinafter “each land of this case”) - Compensation for losses: The amount indicated in the column for “adjudication on expropriation” in the attached Table.
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection - The date of adjudication on an objection: August 25, 2016 - Compensation for losses: The determination on an increase in the amount stated in the column for “adjudication” in the attached Form “A” against the Plaintiff B and C by dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for increase in compensation.
D. The value of each of the instant lands calculated by the appraiser F’s appraisal result (hereinafter “court appraisal result”) is as stated in the column of “court appraisal” in the annexed sheet.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the court appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant calculated an overly low compensation by evaluating the value of each of the lands of this case. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiffs a delay compensation in addition to the difference between the legitimate compensation according to the court's appraisal result and the compensation for objection.
3. Determination
A. In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, in case where each appraisal and each court appraiser, which form the basis of the judgment, are not unlawful in the method of appraisal, and there is no other reason and there is a difference in the result of appraisal due to a somewhat different relation with the comparison of goods, etc., one of them shall be erroneous in the content of the goods comparison of the appraisal.