beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,323,50 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 18, 2015 to November 10, 2016.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: B Housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public notice of Seodaemun-gu on April 20, 201 - Project implementer C: Defendant
B. Decision on expropriation made on February 27, 2015 by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Metropolitan City: D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”), 69 square meters in size, F 24 square meters in size (hereinafter referred to as “E”), E-ground storage, parking lot, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land, etc.”) owned by the Plaintiff - The expropriation compensation amounting to KRW 458,737,200 in total (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land, etc.”) - The expropriation compensation amounting to KRW 458,737,200 in size (E land 24,250,000 in total, KRW 78,00 in F land, KRW 156,487,200 in size): - The appraisal corporation and the Korea Appraisal Board on April 17, 2015: The date of expropriation.
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on March 24, 2016 - The compensation for losses for each land of this case shall be increased to 307,318,50 won (E land 228,010,500 won, F land 79,308,000 won) and the part of the application for the increase of compensation for losses for obstacles shall be dismissed - Appraisal: A certified public appraisal: a certified public appraisal company or a certified public appraisal company (hereinafter referred to as “a public appraisal company”) that has entered in the resolution of expropriation and a new appraisal company (hereinafter referred to as “appraisals”) in the resolution of expropriation and a new appraisal company (hereinafter referred to as “adjudications”) [based on recognition]; the facts that there is no dispute between the appraisal companies; the evidence Nos. 1 and 2; the statement in the evidence No. 9,
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the course of calculating compensation for losses for each of the instant lands, the surrounding market prices, etc. were not adequately reflected in comparison of individual factors, and correction of other factors. Accordingly, each of the instant lands was evaluated as inconsistent with equity. 2) Although the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for an application for adjudication on expropriation of each of the instant lands on March 10, 2014 and May 29, 2014, the Defendant failed to immediately implement the claim and filed an application for adjudication on expropriation on December 16, 2014.
The defendant has passed 60 days from the expiration date of the application for parcelling-out of the project in this case to the plaintiff.