재결취소및손실보상금증액
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Approval and Public Notice of Project - Road Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) - C publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 4, 2012 - Project operator: the head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration.
B. The Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Defendant Committee”)’s ruling of expropriation on April 23, 2015 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): - The expropriation compensation amounting to KRW 265,412,00 for each land listed in the separate sheet, and the recognition of KRW 165,256,40 for ground houses, trees, and other obstacles (hereinafter “each land listed in the separate sheet and its ground houses, trees, and other obstacles”) - The date of expropriation: The appraisal corporation on May 26, 2015 - The Korea Land Expropriation Corporation, the Korea Land Appraisal Corporation, the Korea Land Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “Expropriation Decision”) [based] [Article 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including any number). The purport of the entire pleadings and arguments is as follows:
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. For the following reasons, the instant ruling of acceptance has a serious defect in the instant case. Thus, the instant ruling of acceptance is null and void as a matter of course.
1) The instant land, etc. was already expropriated by the Defendant Committee’s expropriation ruling (Articles 14 and 997) on November 20, 2014. Although the Plaintiff raised an objection against the said expropriation ruling (Article 14 and 14997), the Defendant Commission rendered the instant expropriation ruling without raising an objection. (2) The Defendant Committee forged the written adjudication on the expropriation ruling (Article 14997) and the written adjudication on the acceptance of the instant case.
3. Regarding the instant expropriation ruling, ① a land and a goods protocol prepared with respect to the instant expropriation ruling does not coincide with the current state, ② a wrong selection was made as to the comparison standard in conducting an appraisal, and the market price of neighboring land, compensation example, and year.