beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this case is ① the evidence submitted at the court of first instance, and the court's explanation of this case is not sufficient to reverse the facts of recognition of the first instance court's evidence No. 20 to No. 32 (including the main number), and ② the facts of recognition No. 1 of the first instance court's explanation of this case are as follows.
(d) The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than using the item below as follows is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
D. On the other hand, on October 16, 2012, the Defendant reserved the aforementioned compensation money deposited by the Plaintiff, and thereafter dissatisfied with the instant adjudication to the Central Land Expropriation Committee. The Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling on June 20, 2013, changing the compensation money for the instant land to KRW 782,616,400. E. On the other hand, the Defendant filed an administrative litigation against the Regional Land Expropriation Committee of Ulsan Metropolitan City and the Plaintiff seeking the increase of compensation money and the cancellation of the instant adjudication on August 28, 2014, seeking the reduction of compensation money and the revocation of the instant adjudication on expropriation. On the other hand, the Defendant was sentenced to a ruling dismissing the claim for revocation of the said adjudication (the Plaintiff was additionally deposited on January 1, 2014).
() Although the above judgment was appealed by Busan High Court No. 2014Nu22311, the dismissal of appeal was rendered on January 15, 2016, and the Supreme Court again appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2016Du35182, and the case is still pending in the present case. [Grounds for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, Gap No. 1, 3, 4, evidence No. 7-1, 2, 3, Gap, 8, 11, 13, evidence No. 15-1, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 15-3, and the purport of the entire pleadings]
2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.