beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,914,90 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 30, 2017 to March 26, 2019.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Project approval and announcement 1) Project name: Housing redevelopment project (B Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project) (2) project implementer in Ansan-si: Defendant 3 project approval: C public notification at Ansan-si on June 2, 2015, and D public notification at Ansan-si on July 21, 2015;
(b) Objects to be expropriated by the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on May 15, 2017: Land, buildings and obstacles 2 as indicated in the attached Form : Compensation for losses on June 29, 2017: 357,215,550 won 4): An appraisal corporation E and a stock company;
(c) Compensation for losses: 370,910,350 won (attached Form 218,769,000 won as part of each land indicated in attached Form) 2 of the Central Land Expropriation Committee on July 19, 2018: Company G and Company H
D. The appraisal value of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the lands of this case”) as a result of the appraiser I’s appraisal of this court: KRW 232,683,900 (the relationship between the buildings and obstacles as stated in the separate sheet at the time of the appraisal is excluded from the appraisal) [the grounds for recognition] did not have any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s decision of expropriation of land and obstacles and its decision of compensation amount was excessively lower than the objective market value due to errors in the selection of comparative land for the Plaintiff’s assertion.
B. In a lawsuit on the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation 1, each appraisal and each court appraiser’s appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal and each appraisal, which form the basis of the judgment on the appraisal methods, are not illegal in the appraisal methods, and there is no other’s opinion in view of the remaining factors except for the category of goods, but there is a little difference in the appraisal result due to a little different relation, insofar as there is no evidence to prove that there is an error in the nature of each appraisal and assessment, reliance on any one of each appraisal and appraisal at the discretion of the fact-finding court.