손실보상금
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of the claim.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiff added to this court. The plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful for the court to calculate the area of the dry field illegally punished on the basis of the appraisal result of the appraiser L of the first instance court, because it is likely that the area of the dry field illegally punished is not secured objectivity and accuracy, and it is possible for the appraiser H of the first instance court to calculate the area of the dry field illegally punished on the basis of the appraisal result of the appraisal result of the appraiser L of the first instance court, and the appraisal result of the market price of the land of this case, and ③ the appraiser H of the first instance court calculated the market price of the land of this case unfairly lower than the market price of the land of this case by misunderstanding the comparison with the standard standard place of comparison in assessing the market price of the land of this case."
① In a case where multiple parcels of land are indivisible for the purpose of use as a whole, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to evaluate the whole parcels of land as one parcel, and to evaluate the whole at a single price. Here, “inseparably indivisible relationship for the purpose of use” refers to a case where the situation in which a group of land is used is deemed reasonable and reasonable in terms of social economic and administrative aspects, and also in terms of the formation of value of the relevant land. However, Supreme Court Decisions 2013Du6138 Decided October 11, 2013; 2005Du1428 Decided May 26, 2005, etc.