beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,850,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 15, 2016 to November 16, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) The name of the project and the name of the public announcement of the project: The public announcement of the Gyeonggi-do public announcement on April 2, 2010; D, the Gyeonggi-do public announcement on March 28, 2012; the F, the Gyeonggi-do public announcement on April 9, 2013; and the G project implementer announced by the Gyeonggi-do public announcement on April 10, 2014: the Defendant.
B. Compensation subject to the Gyeonggi-do Local Land Tribunal’s ruling of expropriation on May 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant ruling of expropriation”) and compensation for losses: The date of expropriation (hereinafter “instant obstacles”) 8,400,000 won (the Plaintiff’s business compensation claim was not accepted) for the articles on the ground [YY 200 military units, miscellaneous materials, 1 (including 230 military units, wood ruptures, 60EA), 2 ( wood ruptures, 14EA), ruptures, 140,000 won (the Plaintiff’s business compensation claim was not accepted) of the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling (hereinafter “instant ruling”) subject to compensation and compensation for losses on October 27, 2016: The Korea Land Tribunal’s appraisal corporation (which did not accept the Plaintiff’s claim for business compensation) for the obstacles in the instant case: K and L Co., Ltd. (based on recognition), each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s primary assertion: From 2001 to 2001, the Plaintiff used the obstacles of this case, which are the two-wing facilities, in the form of “M” (hereinafter “the two-wing business of this case”).
A) While engaging in the instant both-wing business, the Plaintiff was naturally abolished due to the instant expropriation ruling. Therefore, the Plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation for business closure for two years, and the amount of compensation for losses determined by the appraisal of the instant objection was not limited to that. (ii) Preliminary assertion: even if the Plaintiff could not be deemed to discontinue the instant both-wing business, the place of business should be transferred.