logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원(청주) 2015.05.12 2013나1311
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant D Co., Ltd. in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and that part is revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 26, 2008, the Cheongju-si Do governor approved and announced an industrial complex plan, which developed the area of 1,389,202 square meters (hereinafter “project site in this case”) into an industrial complex (title: F; hereinafter “instant industrial complex”) by making the project operator the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff. The Cheongju-si Do governor approved and announced the industrial complex plan to develop the area of 1,389,202 square meters (hereinafter “project site in this case”) with the Plaintiff. 2) The land in nine lots, including H 11,191 square meters (hereinafter “the land in this case”), owned by Cheongju-si G (hereinafter “the deceased”) and owned by Cheongju-si Do, the land in this case including H 11,191 square meters (hereinafter “each lot of land”). On that ground, each of the deceased or the deceased company (hereinafter “the deceased’s property in this case”) shall interfere with the collection of water in this case.

) The obstacles owned by the Defendant Company are mainly the livestock shed building and its related facilities (hereinafter “Defendant Company obstacles”). Among them, the livestock shed buildings are “the instant livestock shed.”

[A] There were two or more]

3) The Defendant Company was running a fish farming in each of the instant land, and Defendant A et al. were the deceased’s inheritors. (B) On June 28, 2011, the Chungcheongbuk-do Regional Land Tribunal: “1. The Plaintiff expropriates each of the instant land and obstacles; and compensates for losses amounting to KRW 4,238,941,430 (i.e., KRW 15,460,248,130, KRW 155,310,00, KRW 2,623,383,30, and KRW 300 (i.e., KRW 1,460).

2. For the date of commencement of expropriation:

7. 29.

"The acceptance ruling was made, and the defendant company did not accept the argument that the compensation for business closure should be made in relation to the two money businesses, and accepted the plaintiff's assertion that it would be sufficient to compensate for the transfer.

2) The Plaintiff’s Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects on July 28, 201 (hereinafter “Public Works Act”).

arrow