logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2021.03.23 2020구합5137
손실보상금증액
Text

1. The defendant is from February 14, 2020 to Plaintiff A, 17,359,848 won, 175,352 won, and each of the said money.

Reasons

1. Approval and public announcement of a project, such as the details of the adjudication on expropriation, - The name of the project: C- the package project implementer: The Seopo City - the public announcement of the authorization of the implementation plan: D (hereinafter referred to as the “public announcement of this case”) on September 6, 2017, which was made on March 29, 2019 by the Local Land Expropriation Committee of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province on March 29, 2019 - The target of expropriation was Plaintiff A9/100 and Plaintiff B 1/100: Seopo-si E-si (F large 268 square meters and was divided on April 23, 2014, and the registration of subdivision was completed on June 14, 2016.

The term "land subject to expropriation" (hereinafter referred to as "land subject to expropriation") and the portion of 42 square meters out of 85.95 square meters on each 2nd floor of a building with 1,25.95 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "building prior to expropriation"; the remainder of the building is referred to as "existing building"; April 26, 2019: - Loss on April 26, 2019 - Total appraisal and repair cost of the land subject to expropriation and building subject to expropriation, safety diagnosis cost, reinforcement cost, building work cost, building cutting, and remaining disposal cost; 227,856,890 won - The plaintiffs filed compensation for considerable business losses, etc.; - The plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs did not seek compensation from the Central Land Expropriation Committee for construction expenses of less than 30 square meters; - The plaintiffs' allegation that the plaintiffs did not claim compensation from the plaintiffs, including the average construction cost of the land subject to expropriation and the total safety diagnosis of less than 10 square meters.

2. The key point of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was to use the building prior to expropriation for rent, but the building subject to expropriation was expropriated, and the future repair work period.

arrow