beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. The Plaintiff A’s KRW 10,210,00 and the annual rate of KRW 5% from January 15, 201 to June 20, 201, respectively.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
A. Project approval and announcement 1) Suwon Urban Planning Facility Project (D, E, etc.)
(2) Defendant 3’s announcement: F of Suwon-si’s announcement on April 21, 2010, and G of Suwon-si announcement on March 4, 2010
B. 1) The Plaintiffs owned each land indicated in the initial lot number column in the annexed sheet No. 1 incorporated in the instant project zone ( Plaintiff C died on May 16, 2013, following the Plaintiff’s death on May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff inherited the right to claim for compensation for losses on the land listed in the annexed sheet No. 7 of the annexed sheet No. 2 as co-inheritors, the co-inheritors around May 2015, through an inheritance division consultation with I, J, and K.
(2) Each land owned by the Plaintiffs is divided as indicated in the parcel number column included in the list of land incorporated in attached Table 1, and each divided land is incorporated into each of the instant projects (hereinafter “each of the instant incorporated land”).
(2) Each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the remaining lands of this case”) by the foregoing incorporation (hereinafter referred to as “each of the remaining lands of this case”), and each of the lands individually referred to as “the remaining lands of this case”) remains without being incorporated into each of the respective projects of this case.
C. The Plaintiff A’s claim for compensation for the decline in the remaining land value of April 20, 2015 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”) by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal: (i) the instant case; (iii) the part concerning remaining land is dismissed on July 11, 2014 on the ground that the owner was changed; (ii) the instant case; (iv) the part concerning remaining land is changed on the ground that there is no interruption of entry, but there is no objective fall in value when considering the location, form, etc. of the specific use area: (ii) the Plaintiff C’s claim for compensation for the decline in the remaining land: although the form of the instant remaining land is changed, there is no interruption of entry, and there is no objective fall in value when considering the location, form, etc. of the specific use area: (iii) the claim for compensation for the decline in the remaining land of Plaintiff B.