Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details, etc. of ruling;
(a) Name of the project and that of the public announcement of the project approval: The defendant;
(b) Land subject to expropriation and compensation by the Gyeongnam-do Regional Land Tribunal on June 27, 2017 (date of commencement of expropriation on August 18, 2017): Attached Form 1;
(Plaintiffs received 5% more of the amount of compensation stated in Attachment 1 from the Defendant. The amount of compensation actually received by M Co., Ltd. from the Defendant is KRW 327,314,660. An appraisal corporation: Q and R.
(c) Results of the ruling by the Central Land Tribunal on an objection made on May 24, 2018: An appraisal corporation that dismissed the objection: S and T stock companies;
D. The results of each commission of appraisal to U and V by this Court (hereinafter “court appraisal results”) - Attached Form 2 are as follows.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4, court appraisal result, the whole purport of the pleading
2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims
A. As to the land to be expropriated by the plaintiffs, the compensation for losses recognized in the procedure of expropriation ruling and objection ruling is too low and unfair, the defendant should pay the plaintiffs the compensation for losses additionally stated in the purport of the claim in addition to the compensation for losses recognized in the above procedure.
B. As seen earlier, the court’s appraisal did not exceed the amount of compensation recognized in the adjudication of acceptance or objection or the actual amount of compensation for losses (in the case of M of a stock company, the result of the court’s appraisal is KRW 319,594,500. This is more than KRW 311,728,250, but the amount of compensation actually paid by M of a stock company is more than KRW 327,314,660, which is less than the amount of compensation actually paid by M of a stock company. However, there is no evidence to deem that the legitimate compensation for the land subject to expropriation exceeds the amount of compensation, etc. recognized in the adjudication procedure.
3. The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed on the grounds that it is without merit.