beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the land subject to expropriation shall be assessed on the basis of the actual state of use at the time of the adjudication on expropriation, and the actual state of use thereof shall not be deemed to be legal fiction by a provision of a statute or by the landowner’s subjective intent, but be objectively determined by relevant evidence
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1375 delivered on September 18, 1998). In addition, in order to calculate the amount of compensation due to the temporary use of the land to be expropriated or due to the original use or the current use at the time of changing the form and quality of the land due to the reason that the land to be expropriated is a temporary alteration of the form and quality, the current use of the land to be expropriated is temporary or the land to be expropriated is a change of the form and quality of the land
(see Supreme Court Decision 201Du2521, Apr. 26, 2012). According to the facts acknowledged as stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the actual use of each of the instant lands is a factory site, since the 1990s, the Plaintiff used each of the instant lands for the Plaintiff Company’s business and operation. As such, at the time of the adjudication of expropriation, the actual use of each of the instant lands is considered a commercial and business site.
In addition, in full view of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s use of each of the instant lands for commercial and business purposes cannot be deemed as an unlawful use in violation of the relevant laws and regulations, and that the Plaintiff’s use of each of the instant lands for commercial and business purposes cannot be deemed as a “temporary use” as stipulated in Article 70(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc
Examining the records in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.
There is a violation of logical and empirical rules.