logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.09.27 2015구합9723
토지수용에 대한 보상금 증액 청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 147,820,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from January 28, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Details of ruling;

(a) 1) Business name: Public notice of construction works on B Highway (17j) 2: Defendant: C project operator announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on June 5, 2012;

B. Subject to expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on September 17, 2015: D and E (hereinafter “instant land”)

2) As to the sum of KRW 13,241 (hereinafter “instant trees”) on the ground, including KRW 5,000,000.

(2) Amount of compensation: 54,580,000 won (in a lump sum compensation method) 3: An appraisal corporation: Adodon appraisal corporation and B&D appraisal corporation (hereinafter “adjudication appraiser”). The appraisal results are “appraisals”.

(4) The date of commencement of expropriation: November 1, 2015.

According to the appraisal of this Court, the sum of compensation for the instant trees according to the result of an appraisal commission (Evidence A 3) with respect to appraiser F in the procedure for preservation of evidence of this Court, the aggregate of the market prices of the instant trees at the time of the adjudication of expropriation is KRW 202,40,000,000.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Preservation of Evidence"). 【No dispute is raised against the result of the appraisal, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the possibility of transplantation and the cost of transplantation by species of trees of this case must be assessed, in the expropriation ruling, the amount of compensation shall be calculated in a lump sum and the amount of compensation does not reach legitimate compensation. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the amount of compensation determined by the legitimate compensation for losses of trees of this case and the expropriation ruling. (B) As to Article 75(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), as a matter of principle, the amount of compensation necessary for the transfer (hereinafter “transfer cost”) should be the cost for the transfer, and it is difficult to transfer the trees or it is difficult to transfer them to do so, thereby

arrow