logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.11.11 2020구단62412
손실보상금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount corresponding to the "Difference" stated in attached Table 2 and each of the above amounts.

Reasons

1. Details of ruling;

A. On February 4, 2016, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the change of the project implementation of the “A Area Redevelopment Project” pursuant to Article 28(4) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017).

(Notice B of Dongdaemun-gu). (b)

The Defendant, a project implementer of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City local Land Tribunal, filed an application for adjudication in order to acquire each land and obstacles (hereinafter referred to as “each of the land to be expropriated and obstacles to each of the instant land to be expropriated”) indicated in the attached Table 2, which is owned by the Plaintiffs located in the improvement zone of this case. On March 22, 2019, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land Tribunal: (a) stated compensation for each of the land to be expropriated and obstacles to each of the instant land to be expropriated in the attached Table 2, and (b) determined the commencement date of expropriation as of May 10, 2019 and rendered an adjudication to accept the compensation (hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication of expropriation”).

C. On May 21, 2020, the Central Land Tribunal filed an objection against the instant adjudication on expropriation. On May 21, 2020, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to change the amount of compensation for each of the land to be expropriated and the obstacles to each of the instant objects to the compensation for losses (hereinafter “the instant ruling”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The appraised value of each appraisal, which is the basis of the plaintiffs' assertion of this case and its ruling, is a remarkably low-evaluation amount compared to the reasonable value of neighboring land.

The court appraiser's appraisal is an independent position of the court, fairness in the selection procedure of appraiser, and for a sufficient period of time for minor objects.

arrow