logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.17 2016누60494
잔여지가치하락 손실보상금 청구
Text

The part against the defendant among the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to that part are filed.

Reasons

1. Determination on the details of the adjudication and the defense before the merits

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this part of the reasoning, is identical to that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3, No. 18 to No. 9, No. 13), except for adding and adding some contents as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

나. 고쳐쓰는 부분 ▣ 위 해당 부분의 각 “원고들”을 각 “원고 BL, BM, BN을 제외한 나머지 원고들과 H는”으로 각 고친다.

▣ 제1심판결서 제5쪽 제4행 다음에 아래 내용을 추가한다.

“H died on February 4, 2016, and his/her heir shall have Plaintiff BL and Plaintiff BM, a spouse, and BN.”

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Some of the plaintiffs' claims were incorporated into the site for the public works of this case; ① the size of the remaining land of this case is reduced, and the efficiency of the remaining land of this case is reduced, such as a narrow bridge or an irregular shape, etc., in the land in a narrow rectangular range; ② the condition of demarcated land has deteriorated due to the construction of motorway on the front of the remaining land, such as the entry into the remaining land is more difficult than the previous one; ③ the occurrence of automobile noise has deteriorated; ③ the occurrence of automobile noise; ④ the designation of a clearance zone of 20 meters from the boundary line of each of the two sides of the motorway of this case led to the lack of administrative conditions and the decline in the value of the remaining land of this case. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the loss.

B. First of all, the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs alone is acceptable with regard to the fact that the decline in the value of the remaining land of this case occurred due to ① reduction in the efficiency due to the reduction or change of the area of land, ② aggravation of land conditions due to difficult entry, ③ aggravation of environmental conditions due to automobile noise.

arrow