beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.11.20 2013구합6474

토지수용보상금증액

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 82,367,200 as well as 5% per annum from July 17, 2013 to November 20, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project name: A (I) - Public notice of a housing site development project: Defendant: B, public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on December 31, 2008; C, public notice of the same part on April 5, 2012; D- Project operator public notice of the same part on December 24, 2012;

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation by May 23, 2013 - Land subject to expropriation: The land indicated in the attached compensation details (hereinafter “instant land”): The date of commencement of expropriation: The appraisal corporation on July 16, 2013 - The State’s appraisal corporation, the appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisals”) (hereinafter “adjudications”), and the appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisals”) [based on recognition]]/no dispute, Gap’s statements, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1 and 2 (including serial numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The land of this case and the land of this case related to the daily complex are the E large 1,065 square meters (hereinafter “the adjoining land of this case”).

(2) Inasmuch as the instant land and the instant adjacent land are indivisible for the purpose of use, the entire amount of compensation based on the adjudication and appraisal on the instant land alleged as lawful compensation should be considered as one parcel and evaluated as a single price. (2) The compensation based on the adjudication and appraisal on the instant land alleged as lawful compensation does not reach a legitimate amount of compensation, and the compensation calculated based on the market price appraisal conducted on March 14, 2014 on the appraiserF (hereinafter “court appraiser”) by the court’s appraisal conducted on March 14, 2014 (hereinafter “court appraisal”), falls under a reasonable amount of compensation. Therefore, the Defendant should additionally pay the difference between the compensation determined in the court appraisal and the compensation determined in the adjudication.

B. (1) Determination is based on the determination of the claim regarding a complex, and where multiple parcels of land are in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use by forming a group of lands, barring any special circumstance, the entire parcels of land shall be considered as one parcel, and the land characteristics shall be surveyed, barring any special circumstance.