logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.12.15 2015구합62767
손실보상금
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) from May 20, 2015, to Plaintiff A, KRW 47,696,750, KRW 3,581,630, and each of the above amounts.

Reasons

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project approval and public notice - Project name: Public housing project (C district): The defendant; D public notice by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 26, 2010 - Project operator:

(b) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on expropriation on March 26, 2015 - The land to be expropriated and the amount of adjudication compensation: The following (attached Table 1):

(hereinafter referred to as "Seoul Guro-gu E" only): - An appraisal corporation on May 19, 2015 - An appraisal corporation: a light-day appraisal corporation and a national appraisal corporation;

C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on December 17, 2015 – The Plaintiff’s objection is dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s compensation for losses is increased as indicated below [Attachment 1] - The Land Appraisal Corporation and the Korea Appraisal Board (hereinafter “Appraisal Board”) / [Attachment 1] 1,304 before AF, 147, 650, 400, and 100 H majored KRW 721,742,260, 450, 269, 298, 298, 950 B majored roads / [Attachment 18,36, 406, 4381, 308, 207, 308, 107, 308, 107, 207, 3081, 207, 307, 2581, 307, 407, 2818, 417, 2817, 5716

2. The Defendant filed the instant lawsuit claiming the amount of compensation increase against the Defendant’s prior defense on May 13, 2015. On December 17, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim seeking the difference between the amount of compensation and the amount of court appraisal on August 30, 2016, which was eight months after the ruling was rendered on December 17, 2015. Since the Defendant did not assert any assertion on the purport of disputing the illegality of the ruling within 30 days after the date of receiving the written ruling on objection, the Defendant asserted that the part seeking the revocation of the ruling is unlawful, even with the period of filing the lawsuit.

Domination, public works.

arrow