logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.06.11 2019구합55808
손실보상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project name: B housing redevelopment and rearrangement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): Public announcement of project implementation authorization: Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City public announcement on March 19, 2018 - Project implementer C: Defendant;

(b) Decision on expropriation made on July 17, 2019 by the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal - The date of expropriation: - The Plaintiff’s compensation (transfer cost): 2,350,000 won - The Plaintiff’s assertion related to business loss compensation is rejected on the grounds that it is not subject to business compensation due to the characteristics of the type of business (applicable to recognition), without any dispute (applicable to recognition), Gap’s evidence No. 1, Eul’s evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) Since the plaintiff started the business prior to the approval date of the execution of the project of this case and suspended the business due to the project of this case while continuing the business, the defendant is entitled to the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act for Public Works Projects (hereinafter "Land Compensation Act").

The Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act”).

(2) The Defendant is liable to pay a reasonable amount of business loss equivalent to the operating profit loss to the Plaintiff, even though the amount of business loss due to the Plaintiff’s suspension of business should be reflected in the amount of the lawful business loss compensation, since such portion was not entirely reflected in the appraisal of judgment, so the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff a reasonable amount of compensation equivalent to the operating

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. Article 45 Subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act, upon delegation of Article 77 of the Land Compensation Act, provides that “any business that has and continues to be conducted with human and physical facilities at a legitimate place prior to the date of the project approval,” subject to business compensation, and Article 47(1) of the same Rule provides that “where the place of business should be relocated due to the performance of public works,”

arrow