수용재결취소등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of adding the judgment in the trial as to the assertion that the plaintiffs added to the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of acceptance decision at the court of first instance as to the claim for revocation of the disposition of acceptance decision, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with
2. Additional determination
A. According to the relevant laws and regulations, the Defendant Union, a project implementer, must undergo the procedures for consultation with the Plaintiffs, who are the objects of cash settlement prior to the filing of the petition for adjudication on expropriation. As to the consultation on compensation, the procedures for calculating the agreed amount shall be observed, and reasonable compensation should be presented. If the petition for consultation on expropriation is not properly followed, the Defendant Union’s application for adjudication on expropriation should be deemed unlawful and thus the adjudication on expropriation of the instant case should be revoked. 2) The Defendant Union, a project implementer, shall consult on the basis of the amount appraised by two appraisal business entities recommended by the head of the Si/Gun in consultation on compensation with the Plaintiff A, B, and C (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Urban Improvement Act”).
(1) Article 47(1) of the same Act and Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 28628, Feb. 9, 2018) (see, e.g., Article 47(1))). In the Plaintiff Company’s agreement on compensation for business losses, the agreement shall be made on the basis of the amount appraised by three appraisal business entities, including one appraisal business entity selected by the Plaintiff Company, pursuant to Article 68 of the Land Compensation Act.
In addition, the amount of compensation proposed at the time of consultation with the plaintiffs was not reasonable amount of compensation.
3. As such, the acceptance ruling of this case is also required unless the defendant union has gone through the compensation consultation procedure with the plaintiffs.