beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,069,460 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from September 22, 2018 to November 12, 2020, and the following.
Reasons
1. Details, etc. of ruling;
(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project approval and housing redevelopment improvement project in Zone B - Public announcement: The defendant on April 4, 2017 - Project implementer C publicly notified by the North-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City Office:
B. Adjudication on expropriation on August 9, 2018 by the Gwangju Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee - Subject to expropriation: D large 175.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Gwangju Northern-gu and housing, etc. on the instant ground (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): The starting date of expropriation: September 21, 2018 - Compensation for losses: 108,970,050 won in the instant land; and 36,80,000 won in the instant obstacles; total of 145,850,050 won in the instant obstacles.
(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on June 27, 2019 - Compensation for losses: 110,561,940 won for the land in this case and the total of 36,252,50 won for the obstacles in this case; 146,814,440 won;
(d) Results of the appraisal by the court and appraiser - Compensation for losses: 113,631,400 won of the land of this case and the obstacles of this case shall be excluded from the appraisal due to transplant, removal, destruction, etc.
2. Since the plaintiff's appraisal of the objection on the land of this case and the obstacles of this case was erroneous in the evaluation of compensation for losses excessively low, the defendant is liable to pay the difference between reasonable compensation for losses and compensation for losses as stipulated in the adjudication of this case to the plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. 1) In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of compensation, in case where the appraisal by an appraisal agency, which forms the basis of the judgment, and the appraisal by an appraiser selected by the court, are different from the appraisal by comparison of individual factors, in principle, whether to choose one of the appraisal results belongs to the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2963, Nov. 12, 2015).