Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Po-ven, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorney Seo-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

April 26, 2011

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap12816 Decided August 25, 2010

1.In accordance with the purport of the claim that has been reduced in the trial, the judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 48,340,740 won, 32,227,160 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from March 25, 2010 to June 14, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

B. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 1/5 of the total litigation costs is assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

A. Purport of the claim of the first instance court

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 60,785,220 won, 40,523,400 won, and each of the above amounts with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the claim as of March 18, 2010 and the day of complete payment.

(b) the purport of the claim that has been reduced in the trial;

The defendant shall pay 48,340,740 won to the plaintiff 1, 32,227,160 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from March 24, 2010 to July 21, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following dismissal or addition. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Parts to be removed or added

(1) The 2nd, 11th, and 5th, 6, and 7th, of the judgment of the first instance court respectively, “Change in the dynamics of the tourist valley” means “Change in the dynamics of the tourist valley.”

Shebly, the following shall be added to the 5th sentence of the first instance court:

According to the Land Survey Book, Kim ○, a name of each land before the division, stated that the address of Kim ○, a name of the land in each of the instant land before the division, is “Seong-dong, Kim Sung-dong,” or “Seong-dong, Nung-dong,” but at the time, there was only the designation of “seng-dong,” and there was no designation of “seng-dong,” or “Dongcheon-dong,” and the designation of “Seng-dong,” was discovered in both the administrative districts other than the “Seong-dong,” within the Sung-dong, Nung-dong, a name of the above circumstances and the “Seng-dong, Nung-dong,” and that it is difficult to view that Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty in the judgment) was the same person. In light of the fact that Nonparty 1, a person residing in the “Seong-dong,” in the “Seong-dong, Nungsung-dong,” the Defendant’s assertion that there was no confusion in the name or multiple-dong.

Article 12-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “A person shall be punished by imprisonment, imprisonment, or imprisonment, or imprisonment, with labor, or imprisonment with labor, or imprisonment with labor, or imprisonment with labor, or imprisonment with labor, or imprisonment with labor, shall be punished by imprisonment with labor, or imprisonment with labor, or imprisonment with labor.”

『⑵ 감정인 소외 2의 감정결과에 의하면, 이 사건 1토지를 편입 당시의 이용상황인 ‘답’으로 평가하고 나머지 각 토지를 현재의 이용상황대로 평가할 경우, 정당한 보상액은 별지 2 기재와 같이 합계 80,567,900원이 되고(회신된 감정서 내용을 보면, 이 사건 3토지의 경우 개별요인과 기타요인에 관한 평가를 거쳐 산출된 가격에 이용상황이 유수지인 경우를 전제로 한 고려 비율인 1/7을 적용한다는 취지로 기재하고서도 실제 계산에서는 1/3의 고려 비율을 적용하여 적용단가를 ㎡당 26,000원으로 과다하게 산정한 잘못이 있는바, 위와 같은 오류를 바로잡아 적정 보상액을 다시 계산하면 별지 2의 3항 기재와 같다), 원고들의 상속지분별 보상액은 별지 3 기재와 같다.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 48,340,740 won, 32,227,160 won, and 20% per annum under the Civil Act from March 25, 2010 to June 14, 2011, which is the date following the delivery date of a copy of the request for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of March 18, 2010, as the plaintiffs sought by the plaintiffs 1 and 42,27,160 won, and each of the above amounts shall be paid from March 25, 2010 to the date of the decision of the court of this case, which is the date of the decision of the court of this case, to the date of full payment."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the above recognized scope, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without any justifiable reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above, and 1/5 out of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, taking into account the developments leading up to the reduction of the claims in the trial and the progress of the litigation in the trial.

[Attachment]

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)