beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,781,600 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 13, 2016 to June 13, 2017.
Reasons
1. Circumstances and results of appraisal of the ruling;
(a) Business name - Public housing project (B) - Public housing project (hereinafter “instant project”): The public notice: C, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced on May 26, 201, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced on October 13, 201 - The project implementer is the Defendant:
(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation as of November 19, 2015 - The date of expropriation: January 12, 2016 - the date of expropriation: the Gyeonggi-do Incheon Metropolitan City, which is located in the project area of this case, 244 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”): Compensation: 184,098,000 won - the Sejong Land Appraisal Corporation and Sam Chang Chang-si, Inc.
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on August 25, 2016 - Compensation: 185,00,000 won - An appraisal corporation: Guwon Appraisal Corporation and the Korea Appraisal Board (hereinafter “Objection Appraisal Board”) (hereinafter “Objection Appraisal Board”)
D. As a result of the appraiser F’s appraisal (hereinafter “appraisal”) - The court appraisal result: 187,782,400 won where the instant land falls under the private road under Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act”), and 541,97,200 won where the instant land does not fall under the private road in fact; and 541,97,200 won where the instant land does not fall under the private road in fact [based on recognition]; 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 4, and 6 evidence (including each number), each entry of the appraisal report of appraiser F, the appraisal result of appraiser F, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.
2. The appraisal result of the plaintiff's objection is erroneous in the appraisal of the land of this case as follows, and the appraisal of the land of this case is unfair by excessively lowering the value of the land of this case. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the difference between the reasonable compensation according to the court appraisal result and the compensation according to the appraisal result.
In this case.