logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.09.07 2017구합90223
수용보상금증액
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,152,060 as well as 5% per annum from February 11, 2017 to September 7, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Project name: 1) Project name: A project implementer of a zone-1 redevelopment project for a zone-2 financing promotion zone: Defendant 3 project approval: August 16, 2013, the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Public Notice No. 2013-82;

B. Subject to the expropriation ruling by the local Land Tribunal on December 23, 2016 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”): 198-5 square meters and 307 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”).

(B) the obstacles in the list on the land and the list on the ground (hereinafter referred to as “in this case obstacles”) shall be referred to as “the objects to be expropriated in this case” together with the above land.

(2) Compensation for losses: 1,759,325,940 won (i.e., compensation for the instant obstacle in KRW 129,15,940), 200 (i.e., compensation for the instant obstacle in KRW 1,630,170,000): Central Appraisal Corporation and Dou Appraisal Corporation: Central Appraisal Corporation and Dou Appraisal Corporation

C. Compensation 1,842,898,340 won (i.e., compensation 1,709,990,900 won for the instant obstacles) for losses on November 23, 2017 by the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “instant adjudication”): Appraisal Corporation and Samsung Appraisal Corporation, Inc.

D. The appraised value of this court appraiser A: 1,890,050,400 won (i.e., the appraised value of the instant land of KRW 1,749,286,00) / [Grounds for recognition] A; (ii) there is no dispute; (iii) Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (if any, the number is included); (iv) the appraisal result of the appraiser A; and (iv) the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the compensation amount of the instant objection is too low for the price of the land and obstacles, which are the instant objects of expropriation, and thus does not reach a reasonable amount of compensation. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff additional compensation corresponding to the difference between the reasonable amount of compensation according to the result of the court appraisal and the amount of compensation for the said adjudication,

arrow