1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term or “the term” means “the term or “the term” means “the term”

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Doll, Attorneys Kim Gyeong-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant

April 27, 2011

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 216,558,800 won with 5% interest per annum from November 4, 2009 to May 18, 201, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,024,445,020 won with an amount equivalent to 985,837,020 won from November 4, 2009 to 38,608,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from February 10, 2010 to the date of each judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Approval and public notification of the project;

-Urban planning facility project (construction of roads around a rural development project for a stimulous zone)

- No. 2008-71 dated November 14, 2008

(b) Project operator: Defendant;

C. Each expropriation ruling by the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter collectively referred to as "each expropriation ruling of this case"), and in total, seven parcels of land subject to each expropriation ruling of this case (hereinafter referred to as "land subject to expropriation of this case").

(1) The acceptance ruling of September 10, 2009 of this case

(A) Land subject to adjudication of expropriation and compensation amount

(1) Forest land (number 5 omitted) 245 square meters (which was divided into 690 square meters of forest land (number 4 omitted on August 28, 2008 for the instant business), 42,744,410 won of forest land (number 5 omitted), 245 square meters of forest land in Si-Gun, Si-si, Si-si.

(2) Sii-si automatic road (number 6 omitted) 871 square meters (the instant project was divided into 955 square meters on August 28, 2008, Sii-si automatic road (number 3 omitted), 50,198,340 won (the instant project was divided into 955 square meters on August 28, 2008).

(3) Automatic Si/Gun roads (number 7 omitted), 17 square meters, gold 2,381,700 won.

(4) 79 square meters and gold 22,903,780 won prior to Si/Gun automatic (number 8 omitted) in Si/Gu.

(5) A Gun automatic Gun (number 9 omitted) Forest land: 493 square meters, gold 80,917,560 won.

(6) Automatic Si-Gun (number 10 omitted) Forest land 2,079 square meters, gold 318,779,300 won.

(B) Details of the ruling on the remaining land expropriation claims

The Plaintiff filed a claim for expropriation of the 330 square meters of the Gun automatic (number 2 omitted), 445 square meters of forests and fields of the same Dong (number 4 omitted), 84 square meters of the same Dong (number 3 omitted), 84 square meters of roads (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “the remaining land of this case”), the remaining building of Singu, Singu, Singu, Gun automatic (number 2 omitted), for expropriation of the 1st unit of reinforced concrete structure, 49.54 square meters of residential facilities, 2nd floor, 9.9 square meters of residential facilities, 2nd floor, 98.9 square meters of residential facilities, 2nd floor, 2nd unit reinforced concrete structure, 35.57 square meters of residential facilities attached to 2nd unit of Singu, Singu, Singu, (hereinafter referred to as the “the remaining

(C) Date of commencement of expropriation: November 3, 2009

(d) Appraisal Corporation: Korea Appraisal Corporation and two appraisal corporations business branch offices; and

(2) The acceptance ruling of December 17, 2009 of this case

(A) Land subject to adjudication of expropriation and compensation amount

1,581 square meters of forest land, gold 230,250,000 won for forest land (land number 11 omitted) in Si-Gun, Si-si.

(B) Date of commencement of expropriation: December 17, 2009

(C) Appraisal Corporation: Gyeonggi branch office, Inc., Ltd., the central appraisal corporation (hereinafter “appraisal for expropriation”) and the result of appraisal shall be “appraisal for expropriation” (hereinafter “appraisal for expropriation”)

D. The Central Land Tribunal rendered an objection on December 17, 2009 to the expropriation ruling on September 10, 2009 of the instant case (hereinafter “instant objection ruling”).

(1) Land subject to this ruling and amount of compensation

(1) A Gun automatic Gun (number 5 omitted) Forest land: 245 square meters, gold 44,945,250 won;

(2) Si-Gun automatic road (number 6 omitted), 871 square meters, gold 51,040,600 won.

(3) A Gun automatic road (number 7 omitted), 17 square meters and gold 2,228,700 won in Si/Gun.

(4) 79 square meters and gold 23,928,700 won prior to Si/Gun automatic (number 8 omitted) in Si/Gu.

(5) A Gun automatic (number 9 omitted) Forest land of 493 square meters, gold 79,027,90 won in Si/Gun.

(6) Automatic Si-Gun (number 10 omitted) Forest land 2,079 square meters, gold 321,309,450 won.

(2) Details of the ruling on the remaining land expropriation claims

Of the remaining land of this case, the Plaintiff’s objection was dismissed on the ground that each land was used for the parking lot and access to the remaining building (general restaurant business facilities) of this case, and that it is not significantly difficult to use it for the original purpose.

(3) An appraisal corporation: B&D appraisal corporation and D&D appraisal corporation (hereinafter “adjudication appraiser”) and D&D appraisal corporation, and the result of appraisal is “adjudication appraisal”

(4) The Plaintiff received the instant written judgment around December 2009, and filed the instant lawsuit on January 19, 2010.

E. The result of the request for appraisal by Nonparty 2 and the result of the request for supplementary appraisal by Nonparty 2 (hereinafter referred to as “court appraiser”)

(1) As of September 10, 2009 (the date of the instant expropriation ruling) and December 17, 2009 (7 below) with respect to the instant expropriated land, each of the compensation for losses was calculated as follows.

(1) A Gun automatic (number 5 omitted) Forest land of 245 square meters, gold 58,55,000 won;

(2) 8,169,00 won for a Gun automatic road (number 6 omitted) and 871 square meters for a Gun automatic road in Si-si, Si-si, if the current status is a scheduled public map, and 68,809,000 won for a Gun, if the current status is a road.

(3) Si-Gun automatic (number 7 omitted) 17 square meters and gold 2,516,00 won, each of which is a Gun automatic road.

(4) 79 square meters, gold 24,980,000 won (44 square meters in the part, the current status of which is “former”, KRW 19,80,000, and KRW 5,180,000 in the part, the current status of which is “road”, shall be KRW 5,180,000 in the case of a 35 square meters in the part, the current status of which is “road”;

(5) A Gun automatic (number 9 omitted) Forest land: 493 square meters, gold 87,754,000 won;

(6) Automatic Si/Gun (number 10 omitted) Forest land 2,079 square meters, gold 370,062,000 won.

(7) A 1,581 square meters of forest land and 268,858,000 square meters of forest land and 268,858,000 square meters of forest land and 143 square meters of forest land and 260,278,000 square meters of forest land and 143 square meters of forest land and 143 square meters of forest land, the current status of which are “road”, shall be KRW 8,580,000 of forest land

(2) As of September 10, 2009, September 10, 2009, the date of the instant expropriation ruling for the remaining land and the remaining buildings, each of the compensation for losses was calculated as shown in the following Table

In the case of expropriation of the marking of the instant divided items included in the main text, the amount of compensation according to the price decline in the case of expropriation of the instant divided items, shall be KRW 172,590,000,000,000 for 330 square meters of land (number 2 omitted) and KRW 106,35,000,000 for 445 square meters of forest land (number 4 omitted) in Sii-si, Sii-si, Guni-si, Guni-si, Guni-si, Sii-si, Guni-si, Guni-si, Guni-si, Guni-si, of KRW 30,05 square meters of land (number 4 omitted), KRW 30,260,00,000 for 1,764,000,000 for 1,764,000 won for the remaining buildings of this case (number 2 omitted).

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 (including serial numbers)

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant, even though the plaintiff received the written objection of this case around the end of December 2009, did not claim compensation for the remaining land of this case and the remaining buildings due to the expropriation compensation or price decline at the time of filing the lawsuit of this case on January 19, 2010, shall be deemed a subject matter of lawsuit only after submitting the written application for alteration of the purpose of the claim and the cause of the claim as of March 14, 201. Thus, the above claim portion is excessive for the period of filing the lawsuit, and it is unlawful and asserted that it is unlawful.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit within 30 days from the date of receiving the instant petition for expropriation of the remaining land and the remaining buildings until the date of the instant petition for expropriation ruling, but all of the instant petition for expropriation ruling and the instant petition for objection were dismissed in the instant petition for adjudication. At the time of filing the lawsuit, the Defendant’s defense was without merit, as it is deemed that the amount of the claim for compensation for losses should be KRW 6,00,000,000, and later, the amount of the claim for compensation for losses should be expanded according to the appraisal result, and that the amount of compensation for losses arising from the claim for expropriation or value loss of the remaining land and the instant petition for compensation for losses was unlawful, and thereafter, the fact that the purport of the claim was expanded according to the court’s appraisal is clearly stated in the record.

3. Determination as to the claim for increase in compensation for the land expropriated in this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Among the land to be expropriated in this case, the land was used only for the parking lot of the restaurant, which is the remaining buildings of this case, as the so-called scheduled official map (referring to the land actually used for the passage of many and unspecified persons in the absence of implementation of the relevant urban planning facility project after being determined as the urban planning facility project. The concept used in the Land Compensation Guidelines prepared by the Korea Appraisal Association.). As such, the appraisal of the current state of the appraisal of the appraisal by the “road” is unfair. In addition, since the appraisal of the appraisal of expropriation and the appraisal of the appraisal of the appraisal of expropriation did not properly calculate the difference of individual factors and the appraisal of other factors, the compensation for the land to be expropriated in this case was unfairly under-determined, the compensation amount calculated according to the court appraisal and the difference between the compensation amount properly calculated according to the appraisal of the court and the appraisal of the appraisal of expropriation on December 17, 200

B. Determination

(1) The determination as to the assertion that the current status of the Si-Gun automatic road (number 6 omitted) road shall not be considered as a road.

Article 26 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects refers to a road other than a private road under the Private Road Act (excluding a road which is being used as a road after being determined as a road by the urban management plan under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act), which falls under any of the following subparagraphs, and subparagraph 1 of Article 26 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects refers to a road (excluding a road which is being used as a road after being determined as a road by the urban management plan under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act).

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 11-1, 3, and the result of the on-site inspection by this court on the land lot number of the above Si-Gun-si Gun-si Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based 95m2 (hereinafter referred to as "pre-division 3"), the land was classified into 84m2 and 871m2 (number 3 omitted) for the purpose of the project of this case-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Gun-based Do-based 20.

(2) Determination as to the assertion that the indemnity amount of the instant land should be increased

In full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1-3, 4, 2-1, 2-1, and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the expropriation appraiser and the adjudication appraiser are acknowledged to have appraised the land of this case based on the officially announced value of the reference land deemed to have similar usefulness to the land of this case, taking into account the land price rate from the basic date to the pricing point, location, shape, environment, utilization situation, other factors of price formation, and neighboring land price level, etc. Accordingly, the expropriation ruling and the adjudication ruling on the land of this case differs from the court appraisal and the comparison of individual factors, and are deemed to have been duly conducted in accordance with the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor and the Enforcement Rule thereof. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that the adjudication appraisal was arbitrarily calculated on the basis

Furthermore, as long as there is no evidence to prove any error in the comparison of individual factors of the judgment and the court's appraisal with respect to legitimate compensation, the judgment on which one of the appraisal will take place belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding court. The judgment on expropriation and the court's appraisal are judged to have assessed and assessed compensation more appropriate and consistent with the current situation in that they present more detailed comparison items and the basis for calculation with respect to the comparison of individual factors and the calculation of other factors than the court's appraisal. Thus, it is just to calculate compensation for losses for the land of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion seeking an increase in compensation for losses is without merit.

4. Determination as to the claim for compensation for expropriation of the remaining land of this case and the remaining buildings or compensation for losses due to price decline

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The remaining building of this case, which is a restaurant, shall be the site of this case, and it is essential to secure sufficient parking space in order to attract customers because there is no house in the vicinity of the building. Since the land (number 6 omitted) was partitioned from the land of this case (number 3 omitted) and was expropriated in the project site of this case, it is substantially difficult for the plaintiff to use the building in accordance with its previous purpose, and the plaintiff filed a claim for expropriation of the remaining land and the remaining building, the defendant is obligated to pay compensation for its expropriation, and even if the remaining land of this case did not meet the requirements for the request for expropriation, the defendant is obligated to compensate for its loss, since the price decline factor occurred in the shape of the remaining land of this case, road adjoining conditions, etc.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 74 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”), and Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when it is substantially difficult to use the remaining land for its original purpose because part of a group of land belonging to the same landowner is purchased or expropriated through consultation, the owner of the relevant land may request the project operator to purchase the remaining land, and after the approval of the project, he may request the competent Land Tribunal to expropriate the land after the approval of the project. The term “the first purpose” refers to the specific purpose in which the remaining land is actually being used at the time of the ruling of expropriation, and the term “where it is considerably difficult to use” means not only the case where it is physically difficult to use it but also the case where it is difficult to use it socially and economically (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4679, Jan. 28, 2005).

In light of the above-mentioned facts, Gap evidence and evidence Nos. 4, 5-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5-2, 6-1, 2, 8-1, 2, 9-1, 9-2, and 8-8 of the evidence Nos. 6-1, 6-2, and 9-2, and the court's on-site inspection result of the court's appraisal on Jan. 26, 201, the remaining land of this case can be seen as being expropriated and remaining (number No. 5 omitted), and the remaining land of this case can not be seen as being considerably less than 10 meters of the remaining land area of this case's 6-year-si, Si-si (number No. 6 omitted), and it is difficult for the plaintiff to accept the remaining part of this case's 6-year-old building without any further installation of the remaining land lot No. 1693.89 meters of the total floor area of this case's remaining building.

(2) However, even if the use of the remaining land and the remaining buildings in this case does not fall under cases where it is considerably difficult, considering the above circumstances, it can be recognized that the shape of the site of the remaining building is changed from the reverse angle to a bridge, the parking area of which is reduced, and the access road is narrow, as the remaining land and the remaining land used as the restaurant and the site are damaged by the value of the remaining building. Thus, the defendant shall compensate for it in accordance with Article 73 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

Furthermore, on the basis of the officially announced value of reference land which is deemed to have the value similar to the remaining land of this case, the court’s appraisal shall comprehensively take into account the fluctuation rate, location, shape, environment, utilization status, and other factors of price formation from the basic date to the basic date, as well as the level of neighboring land prices, etc. As such, it can be recognized that an adequate assessment is made in accordance with Articles 32 and 35 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, such as comparing the unit price of the building by calculating the cost of repurchasing the remaining building of this case and comparing the unit price of the building. As such, the amount of compensation due to price fall under the amount of compensation column for price fall under the price fall under the

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for losses arising from the price decline of the remaining land of this case and the remaining buildings at the rate of 216,58,800 won and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 4, 2009 to May 18, 2011, which is the date following the date of the decision of this case, to the date of the decision of this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)