beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 82,528,100 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from October 5, 2018 to April 22, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) Project name: C2) Public announcement of project implementation authorization: The project implementer on January 18, 2016: The defendant;
B. Subject to the adjudication of expropriation on August 20, 2018 (Articles 18 and 0028) rendered by the Chungcheongnam-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee (Article 18(1)1): All obstacles, such as ground buildings on each land listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff, were expropriated, but the Plaintiff did not assert any increase in compensation for obstacles other than the above land. Thus, the lower court did not examine whether to increase compensation for obstacles (hereinafter “each land of this case”).
2) Commencement date of expropriation: 4,229,242,950 won for each of the instant lands on October 3, 2018
(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on January 24, 2019 (18 Doz0659): 4,352,279,000 won for each of the instant lands;
D. The court's entrustment of appraisal to appraiser E (hereinafter "the result of the court's appraisal"): Compensation for losses for each land of this case: 4,434,807,100 won 【No dispute exists in the grounds of recognition】 Facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2; the result of the court's entrustment of appraisal to appraiser E; the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The appraisal result submitted by an appraiser at the commission of the court through the appraisal process based on professional knowledge and experience cannot be easily rejected on the sole basis of pointing out the possibility of minor errors that may arise in the appraisal process, unless the other party submits objective data to conceal its credibility. The appraiser’s appraisal result shall be respected unless there is a significant error in the appraisal method, etc. against the rule of experience or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619, Jul. 9, 2009). Meanwhile, the appraisal result should be respected unless there is a significant error in the appraisal method or in the appraisal method, etc.