beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff A, KRW 7,122,450, KRW 8,641,070, KRW 1,487,320, and Plaintiff D.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: F Urban Development Project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”): The location: Gwon in Chungcheongnam-gun budget group - Area: 136,133 square meters - The Defendants - Public announcement: H on December 28, 2012
B. The ruling of expropriation on August 25, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant ruling of expropriation”) and the ruling of correction on September 19, 2014 by the Chungcheongnam-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee: Land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) owned by the Plaintiffs and obstacles - The starting date of expropriation: September 24, 2014 - The amount of compensation calculated for each of the instant lands (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”): as listed in the separate sheet No. 379,739,840, total sum is KRW 379,739,840.
- An appraisal corporation: Il-il Appraisal Corporation, Inc. - the Defendants deposited the full amount of each of the instant compensations to the Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court on September 22, 2014 to September 23, 2014, including obstacles compensation for the Plaintiffs.
C. Written appraisal prepared by the appraiser I of this Court (hereinafter “court appraisal”) - Total amount of compensation calculated for each land of this case: 398,478,00 won : The fact that there has been no dispute as to the ground of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 24 (including spot numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The Defendant budget group regarding the prior defense of the Defendant budget group does not have any fact that the Defendant budget group accepted each of the instant lands, etc., and since the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant budget group is alleged to be unlawful since the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant budget group is against the law, Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Act is generally applicable mutatis mutandis. In a civil lawsuit, a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance has standing to sue, and a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance has the standing to sue.