beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) project approval and public notice - Urban planning facility project approval and public notice - project approval (six routes, including B lines): Defendant: C public notice of Suwon on May 7, 2012; D public notice of Suwon on June 7, 2012; E public notice of Suwon on December 20, 2012;
B. The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 13, 2013 (hereinafter “instant ruling”): Fluor 15 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Suwon-si, and the wall, bluorine, and divate trees (hereinafter “instant obstacles”): Compensation for losses: KRW 5,685,00 for the instant land; KRW 561,100 for the instant obstacles; and KRW 561,10 for the date of commencement of expropriation: The assertion and judgment on June 28, 2013
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant compensation for losses was based on the instant judgment did not properly reflect all the factors, such as assessing the value of the instant land based on the road on the ground that the current status is “road,” notwithstanding the land category of the instant land is “road,” and the instant obstacles fall short of the legitimate compensation for losses by excessively underassessment in light of social norms. As such, the compensation should be increased.
B. According to Article 70(2) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, the burden of proving that the amount of compensation for the land is calculated based on the actual situation at the time of the price, and that the amount of compensation for the land exceeds the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication of expropriation or the adjudication on the increase in compensation for losses.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2255, Nov. 28, 1997). With respect to the instant case, it cannot be said that the selection of compensation amount based on the actual situation of use is unlawful in preference to the land category in the public register in the instant adjudication procedure. The written evidence No. 2 through No. 4 is alone.