beta
Text
The part of the claim for compensation for losses concerning obstacles in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall make the plaintiff 18.
Reasons
Details of the ruling
(a) Business approval and public notice - Business name: Urban planning facility project (c) project in Gwangju City (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) - Business approval and public notice of implementation plan: The public notice of Gwangju City ( January 19, 2018), Gwangju City E ( October 22, 2018): the Defendant
B. The Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”) on March 26, 2019 - Articles subject to expropriation - Fro 501 square meters in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and 14 square meters in the above G field (hereinafter “instant land”): The date of commencement of expropriation: May 10, 2019 - Totaling compensation for losses: KRW 462,985,000 (i.e., F land: KRW 450,39,000; KRW 12,586,000): H and I
C. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on October 24, 2019 (hereinafter “instant objection”) - The same as the total amount of compensation for the instant expropriation adjudication as the compensation for losses - Appraisal Corporation J and K Co., Ltd.
D. Results of the appraisal commission for appraiser L of this Court (hereinafter “court appraisal”): 481,626,00 won (i.e., KRW 468,434,000 for the above F land, KRW 13,090 for the above G land: 13,090 for the above G land) - The aggregate compensation for losses for obstacles ( KRW 402 weeks for mulberry trees, KRW 152, KRW 202 for paper mulberry trees, KRW 202 for paper mulberry trees, KRW 30 for each 15 weeks for paper mulberry trees, KRW 15,00 for each 15,00 for paper trees, KRW 6,75,00 for each f,75,00 for each f,3,6,000 for each f, and KRW 20 for each f,00 for the appraisal of each f, the purport of each appraisal of each f, as a result of the appraisal of each f, as a whole entrustment of oral proceedings.
2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the pertinent expropriation ruling and the compensation amount based on the said adjudication did not reflect the adequate value of the instant land. Thus, the Defendant should pay the difference between the reasonable compensation amount and the compensation amount recognized in the said adjudication to the Plaintiff.
In addition, planting on the land of this case, or