손실보상금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,363,100 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 7, 2016 to February 20, 2018, and the following.
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Recognition and public notice of a project - Name of the housing site development project (B): - Public notice of the housing site development project: C project operator announced on December 16, 2014 - Korea Land and Housing Corporation:
B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on October 13, 2016 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): The subject of expropriation: Do 1,094m2, E, E, 869m2, and F 1,785m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff: 63,816,000 won - The date of commencement of expropriation: December 6, 2016
The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on July 20, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication”) - Contents of the ruling: Dismissal.
D. The court's entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser G (hereinafter "court appraiser") - Compensation for losses: 676,179,000 won - The fact that there is no dispute about the ground for recognition - Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1 through 4 (including the number of branches) , the result of the court's appraisal by the court's appraiser G (hereinafter "court appraiser"), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of compensation, where there is a difference between the appraisal by an appraisal agency which forms the basis of the judgment and the appraisal by an appraiser selected by a court differently from the appraisal by comparison of individual factors, etc., whether to choose any one of the appraisal is, in principle, at the discretion of a court.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2963, Nov. 12, 2015). The adjudication of expropriation and its objection can be seen as legally assessing the land and obstacles of this case in accordance with the relevant statutes. As such, the court’s reasonable amount of compensation should be calculated based on the court’s appraisal, which appears that the characteristics of the land of this case and all factors related to the formation of prices are more appropriate.
B. Ultimately, the Defendant’s judgment of the court on the instant land and the compensation for objection to the Plaintiff is 12,363,100 won and the compensation for the said judgment.