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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "292,643,100 won" in the court's appraisal amount column in the plaintiff's compensation details table in the plaintiff's 13th judgment is as follows: "292,642,100 won"; "adjudication of expropriation" in the plaintiff's compensation details table in the plaintiff C is as "adjudication of expropriation (with partial acceptance of an objection)"; and "adjudication of expropriation" in the plaintiff H's compensation details statement in the 16th judgment of the plaintiff H is as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the plaintiff H's compensation details are as "adjudication of acceptance (with partial acceptance of an objection)", it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The plaintiffs asserts that even in the case of the party, the parties had lost the opportunity to state their opinions on the contents of the land and goods protocol due to the omission of notification of the compensation plan and the unfaithful compensation consultation, and that the opportunity to recommend an appraisal business entity was lost
If evidence of the first instance trial, in particular, evidence No. 4-2, evidence No. 4-1, evidence No. 1-1, and evidence No. 2-1, the whole purport of the pleadings is added, the plaintiffs presented their opinions during the period of public notice for inspection of application documents pursuant to Article 31 of the Land Compensation Act. On January 24, 1989, the plaintiffs G requested an appraisal by the cadastral status survey on the ground that the buildings before January 24, 1989 were previous buildings, the plaintiffs H requested an appraisal by the degree of obstacles, and all other plaintiffs demanded the realization of compensation on the ground that the compensation is low.
In light of this, since the plaintiffs have presented their opinions in the adjudication process, and among them, the assertion to increase compensation has been reflected again to a certain extent, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiffs were given an opportunity to state their opinions with the knowledge of the details of the land and goods protocol, and the opportunity to dispute other than the increase in compensation due to the omission of notification of the compensation