logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.28 2016누73582
손실보상금증액등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff at the court of first instance is not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified even if the evidence submitted at the court of first instance showed each description of Gap 11 or 15 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) submitted at the court of first instance.

Therefore, the court's reasoning for this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

[Plaintiff asserts that, in calculating the amount of compensation for the land of this case, the appraiser and appraiser of the first instance trial committed an error in the approach conditions, the assessment of administrative conditions, the selection of transaction cases to correct other factors, and the determination of correction of other factors, etc. among the gap rates of individual factors, and that the appraisal price of the land of this case was unfairly lowered without considering equity with the compensation price of the connected land. However, the appraiser’s appraisal results must be respected unless there were significant errors such as appraisal methods against the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da1733, Feb. 11, 1997; 2009Da84608, Jan. 12, 2012). In other words, the following facts or circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings adopted by the first instance court and the evidence, namely, all of the above appraisers calculated the compensation price of the land of this case, the Act on the Acquisition of Land and the Compensation for Public Works Projects Act, 2080.

arrow