beta
Text
1. The part of the lawsuit in this case against the Defendant’s Central Land Expropriation Committee shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's defendant.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 1895 square meters in the petitioner-gu B, Cheongju-si (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).
The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport determined an implementation plan and a road zone as the project implementer of the Daejeon Regional Construction and Management of the Regional Construction and Transportation for the implementation of the project (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case") and publicly announced each of them (Public notification D, 22 October 22, 2013, E, 29 November 29, 2013, F, and 29 November 2013, 2013).
B. The head of the Daejeon Regional Construction and Management Administration consulted with the Plaintiff, the owner, etc. to acquire the land, etc. to be incorporated into the instant project and transfer the goods. The head of the Daejeon Regional Construction and Management Administration, on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to expropriate the entire land prior to the instant subdivision, including the remaining land, on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to cultivate the remaining land by dividing the land prior to the instant subdivision into B, Cheongju-gun, Cheongju-gun, B (hereinafter “instant remaining land”) and G 1064 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. As the head of the Daejeon Regional Construction and Management Office did not reach an agreement on the amount of compensation for expropriation, he/she applied for the adjudication of expropriation to the Defendant Central Land Expropriation Committee on May 21, 2015, and received the adjudication of expropriation on July 14, 2015, the compensation for the instant land shall be calculated as KRW 83,450 per square meter and KRW 88,790,800 per square meter (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”). The Central Land Expropriation Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for expropriation for the remaining land on the ground that it is possible to use the remaining land as “the answer” for the past purpose due to the heavy area of the Plaintiff’s request for expropriation and the construction of new body, etc.
The Plaintiff was served on June 1, 2015 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the instant written adjudication of acceptance.
[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.