beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,398,950 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 21, 2013 to July 15, 2015.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project approval and public announcement - Small River Maintenance Project (B,00): Pyeongtaek-si Maintenance Project (B,00): Public announcement C on March 22, 2012 and D public announcement on December 26, 2012;
(b) Decision of expropriation made by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on March 18, 2013 - Subject to expropriation: Pyeongtaek-si, E,F, G, H and their ground obstacles - On May 20, 2013: Compensation for losses: ① Total amount of compensation for land: KRW 74,443,00, ② total of compensation for obstacles, etc. ② Total of KRW 294,802,000 (i.e., total of compensation for obstacles KRW 225,802,00,000): An appraisal corporation; the Pacific Land Appraisal Corporation; and the Gan Appraisal Corporation;
C. The Central Land Tribunal made an objection on July 18, 2013 - An increase of 53,615,000 won in total to the existing E, F, and G (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) in total to 318,101,250 won in total to compensate for obstacles, etc. (i.e., an increase of 243,101,250 won in total to compensate for obstacles (i.e., KRW 243,101,250 in business compensation amounting to KRW 75,000 in business compensation amounting to KRW 373,29,750 in total) - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation, Korea Land Appraisal Corporation, Korea Land Appraisal Corporation, and Korea Land Appraisal Corporation (including an appraiser for expropriation adjudication, and the result of its appraisal is referred to as “appraisal”)
D. 1) The result of the court appraisal entrusted to appraiser I (hereinafter the above appraiser is referred to as "court appraiser"), and the result of the above entrustment is referred to as "the first court appraisal".
- - Compensation 55,215,300 won - Compensation 348,48,483,400 won for each land of this case (= Compensation 267,731,400 won for suspension of work) - Results of entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser J (hereinafter “the second court appraisal”) (hereinafter “the second court appraisal”) - The fact that there was no dispute as to the ground for recognition (the assessment on the premise of closure of business according to the plaintiff’s assertion) - The fact that there was no evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2 (including each number), results of each entrustment of appraisal to appraiser I, and J, the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.
2. The plaintiff.