beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business authorization and public notice - Road project approval and public notice - (BB construction works (six (6)): A public notice of business approval: The defendant;
B. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on objection (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) on September 25, 2014 - With respect to D’s land for factory in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, 2,294 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), the Central Land Tribunal shall calculate compensation for losses based on KRW 485,200 per 1 square meter as the compensation amount increased by October 24, 2013. - Compensation for losses (i.e., 113,04,04 square meters x 485,200 square meters x 485,200 square meters) (i.e., 2,294 square meters x 2,294 square meters x / 485,200 square meters) (the grounds for recognition”) subject to expropriation, entry of evidence No.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. In light of such circumstances and the current status of the instant land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s assertion, compensation for losses was calculated on the basis of KRW 496,200 per 1 square meter, which is higher than the instant land with respect to the land for Kimhae-si, the neighboring land of the instant case. In light of such circumstances and the current status of the instant land adjacent to the road, the compensation for losses under the instant objection ruling does not reach the legitimate compensation, and thus, the compensation should be increased.
B. In a lawsuit seeking increase in compensation for loss, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the amount of reasonable compensation exceeds the amount of compensation determined by the expropriation ruling or the adjudication on the objection.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2255 delivered on November 28, 1997, etc.). Each of the items stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 is insufficient to recognize that the reasonable amount of compensation for the instant land exceeds the amount recognized in the instant objection ruling, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.