logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.24 2016누44317
잔여지가치하락 손실보상금
Text

Plaintiff

All appeals filed by the Class A Association, the school foundation, and the school foundation are dismissed.

Plaintiff

A.I.D.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment added by this Court

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case 1) The remaining remaining parts of the Plaintiff A and the 1,6,9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of the Gyeongyang Private Teaching Institutes of the school foundation were completely cut off by motorways, and thus, the Defendant must compensate for its losses since there was a fall in value in terms of future availability. 2) In the case of the remaining land of Defendant 4, it was impossible to enter the block of the block, but it was still possible to access to the block of the block through the alternative passage, so it is not possible to make a compensation due to the occurrence of a fall in value.

B. The above arguments presented by the plaintiff A-Class, the school foundation Daeyang Institute, and the defendant at this court are not different from the above plaintiffs and the defendant's assertion in the first instance court. The evidence submitted in the first instance court is the evidence [the evidence submitted in the first instance court No. 18-32 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply)] submitted to this court.

2) As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff should compensate for losses including not only the change of the actual use at the time of the adjudication of expropriation but also the decline in the use value and exchange value due to future availability or ease of transactions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Nu10680, Sept. 8, 1998; 9Du10315, Dec. 22, 2000; 200; 200Du10315, Dec. 22, 2000).

arrow