수용재결보상금증액청구의소
1. As to KRW 401,445,00 among the above money and KRW 427,361,000 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 401,445,00 from July 16, 2016 to August 11, 2016.
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name - A Housing Redevelopment and rearrangement Project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Defendant - Public notice: Yeongdeungpo-gu public notice on May 2, 2013
B. Decision on expropriation made on May 27, 2016 by the local Land Tribunal of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”): The Plaintiff is seeking an increase in the amount of compensation for the said land only among the compensation items, and thus, the remainder of the land and obstacles are omitted. - Compensation for losses: 2,853,345,000 won - The date of commencement of expropriation: July 15, 2016 - The Land Appraisal Corporation: Central Appraisal Corporation, the Dong Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “Appraisal”) [based on recognition]: The fact that there is no dispute on the basis of recognition; Party A’s entries in the Evidence Nos. 1, 6 through 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is assessed as “site,” which is a land category on which 359 square meters are recorded among 438 square meters of the instant land, and the remainder of 79 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant issues”).
The Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act”).
(2) The main issue of this case is that the compensation amount is calculated by deeming the “actual private road” under Article 26(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act. However, since the main issue of this case does not fall under the “actual private road” under the said Enforcement Rule, the compensation amount should be calculated by evaluating it as the “site”, which is the land category in the public record, and the adjudication appraisal is unfair by excessively lowering the land of this case. As such, the Defendant should pay the difference between the reasonable compensation amount and the Plaintiff.