beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 26,77,387, and KRW 7,701,00 and each of the said money, the Defendant from November 1, 2017 to the Plaintiff B.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Project approval and public announcement - Project implementation for D Works implemented by the defendant as a project implementer in accordance with C public notice given by the Busan Regional Land Management Office on December 29, 2015;
(b) Adjudication on expropriation - Adjudication on expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on September 7, 2017 - Commencement Date of expropriation: October 31, 2017
Ruling on an objection - Judgment by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on December 21, 2017
(d) Court Appraisal - Expert E of this Court - Expert E of November 8, 2018 (building, etc.) - Expert E of this Court - Expert E of this Court on October 26, 2018
(e) As a result of the appraisal of compensation for losses, (C) additional payment of compensation for losses by the court (C-B) appraisal of compensation for losses (C-B) owner (C-26,724,600 won 175,409,509, 184, 392,80, 800, 26, 777, 387, 169, 800 won and 173,306, 450 buildings, etc. 15, 306, 316, 350 items 35, 784, 587 Plaintiff B-3 obstacles 24,040, 26, 229, 000 buildings, etc. 32,950, 000, 07, 701 through 30, 1301, and 303 of the appraisal and assessment of compensation for losses;
2. In cases where the appraisal by an appraisal institution which forms the basis for adjudication on the increase or decrease of the scope of just compensation following the adjudication on expropriation and the appraisal by an appraiser selected by a court differently from the appraisal by the comparison, etc. of individual factors, in principle, whether to choose any one of the appraisal shall belong to the court's discretion;
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2963, Nov. 12, 2015). An appraiser, appraiser in the instant ruling of acceptance, appraiser in the instant ruling, and appraiser in the instant court appears to have lawfully assessed the instant land in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. However, with respect to the instant land, the court below erred by misapprehending the characteristics of the instant land and the factors for price formation.