logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.01.17 2014구합23347
손실보상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,983,450 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 17, 2014 to January 17, 2017.

Reasons

1. Details, etc. of ruling;

(a) Recognition and Public Notice of Project - Name of urban planning facility project (B): Defendant - Public Notice of Ministry of Knowledge Economy on February 20, 2012

B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on expropriation on October 23, 2014 (hereinafter “adjudication on expropriation”): Land and obstacles listed in the list of objects of expropriation attached to attached Table 1 owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”; hereinafter “instant obstacles”): Compensation for losses: Total amount of KRW 412,034,850, and total amount of KRW 65,028,90 (including KRW 13,473,330) for the instant obstacles; the date of commencement of expropriation: December 16, 2014.

The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection on July 16, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “adjudication”): Total amount of 418,372,140 won of the instant land and total amount of 65,131,050 won of the instant obstacles (including KRW 13,241,000 of the compensation for business suspension against the small 38 heads)

D. The result of the court’s entrustment to appraiser D (hereinafter “court appraiser”) - Compensation for losses: Total amount of 424,35,590 won of the instant land; and the instant obstacles were excluded from the assessment due to the loss, without any dispute as to the ground for recognition; Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4; Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the land number; hereinafter the same shall apply); the court’s appraisal result; the court’s appraisal result; and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not present any assertion as to the closure of business at the stage of the adjudication of acceptance and objection, and the Plaintiff asserted as to the compensation for closure of business after January 18, 2016. The Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for closure of business should be dismissed as it is unlawful because it did not go through the adjudication procedure.

B. Determination 1) Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”)

Article 77 (1) shall apply to business losses incurred by the closure or suspension of business, such as operating profits, transfer expenses for facilities, etc.

arrow