beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 3,175,200 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 23,804,080 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of them from September 11, 2015 to September 2018.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business name - Project name: C (D) - Project operator: Defendant - A public announcement of project approval: F publicly notified by the Gunposi on December 27, 2013, E, November 18, 2014;
B. The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on July 27, 2015 (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”): The date of expropriation: One land listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) and 2,3 land listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) - Compensation for losses: ① 159,686,100 won of the instant land, ② 8,237,840 won of the instant land, and ③ 183,964,000 won of the instant land (hereinafter “appraisal of expropriation”)
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on June 23, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant ruling”) - Compensation for losses: ① the instant land KRW 160,876,800; ② the instant land KRW 8,515,520; and ③ the instant land KRW 185,518,000 (hereinafter “appraisal”)
D. The result of the market price appraisal of the instant land ① through ③ (hereinafter “court appraisal”) by appraiser G of the instant court - ① 164,052,00 won of the instant land, ② 8,700,640 won of the instant land, ③ 189,14,000 won of the instant land (the court appraisal conducted the appraisal on the premise that the present state of the instant land falls under the “prestition” like the appraisal of expropriation, the appraisal of the instant land, and the appraisal of the said appraisal) [the grounds for recognition]] without any dispute, each entry of Gap’s 1 through 4 evidence (including the number), the result of the market price appraisal by appraiser G, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.
2. The appraisal of acceptance of the intent of the plaintiffs' assertion and the appraisal of objection do not meet the reasonable standards of compensation as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, it is unlawful in the court appraisal that deemed the use of the land of this case as "the preceding" rather than "the site" is unlawful.
Therefore, the defendant is the reasonable amount of compensation for losses to the plaintiff A.