beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) 3,652,920 won to Plaintiff A; (b) 778,250 won to Plaintiff B; (c) 12,280,340 won to Plaintiff C; and (d) 12,034.
Reasons
1. Details, etc. of ruling;
(a) Project implementation authorization and publication - Project name: G Housing redevelopment rearrangement project - Project implementer: Defendant - Public announcement of project implementation authorization: H of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 31, 2010;
(b) The adjudication of expropriation on December 23, 2016 by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City - The objects of expropriation shall be as follows:
(hereinafter referred to as "the subject matter of expropriation in this case"). A B CD E IF I I I K L L L L - D (hereinafter referred to as "the subject matter of expropriation in this case"): Plaintiff A 350,56,440 won, Plaintiff B 719,927,97,280 won, Plaintiff C356,597,340 won, Plaintiff D347,545,690 won, Plaintiff E370,971,000 won, Plaintiff F583,484,000 won, and date of commencement of expropriation: February 10, 2017.
The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on November 23, 2017 - Compensation for an objection: Plaintiff A 352,187,040 won, Plaintiff B 723,615,880 won, Plaintiff C360,085,460 won, Plaintiff D352,875,740 won, Plaintiff E374,490,000 won, Plaintiff F589,046,500 won - An appraisal corporation: The appraisal corporation in charge of a dispute resolution, the date of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the resolution of the appraisal company [based on recognition], Gap, 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence No. 5 (including a serial number, if any; hereinafter
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiffs' reasonable compensation for losses on the subject matter of expropriation of this case sought the amount equivalent to the difference between the appraised result by the court appraiser P (hereinafter "court appraisal") and the compensation for losses on the subject matter of expropriation of this case (the plaintiff A3,652,920, the plaintiff B78,250, the plaintiff C12,280,340, the plaintiff C12,034, the plaintiff D12,034,460, the plaintiff E2,070,000, and the plaintiff F16,117,900) and the compensation for losses.
B. In a lawsuit as to the increase or decrease of compensation 1 compensation, in case where each of the appraisal and the court appraiser, which form the basis of the judgment, have no illegality in the assessment methods, and there is no difference in the assessment results due to a somewhat different relation from the other appraisal methods, it shall be recognized that there is an error in the description of the goods, etc. of any one of them.