beta
Text
1. The defendant
A. 10,438,950 won for Plaintiff A corporation;
B. It is against the Plaintiff B’s KRW 2,622,600 and each of the above amounts.
Reasons
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Project approval and the name of public announcement: Industry (C) expansion works, and D public announcement of Ulsan Metropolitan City on August 6, 2015;
(b) A list of objects to be expropriated by the Central Land Tribunal on January 5, 2017: Attached Table;
1. 3. The commencement date of expropriation of each land listed in paragraph 3. (hereinafter “each land of this case”, “the obstacles of this case”, “the obstacles of this case,” and “the land of this case” combined with each land of this case): The Plaintiff Company A: 181,980,850 won for compensation on February 28, 2017 (i.e., KRW 161,118,850 for compensation for losses (i.e., KRW 20,862,00 for the total amount of KRW 124,691,00 for the land): 306,671,850 for the Plaintiffs total of KRW 124,69,00 for the land:
C. As follows, Plaintiff A Co., Ltd.: (i) the amount of compensation for losses arising from the ruling of acceptance by the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered on May 25, 2017, increased the amount of compensation for losses as follows: KRW 193,573,150 (i.e., KRW 25,892,00 obstacles to land 167,681,150) (i.e., KRW 25,892,00): The aggregate of the plaintiffs: KRW 326,592,550 (based on recognition)
2. Determination
A. The plaintiffs' compensation for losses for each of the instant lands, etc. is too small for the following reasons.
Therefore, the defendant should pay the difference between the reasonable compensation following the court's appraisal and the compensation for losses as provided by the court's ruling.
① Compensation for each of the instant lands was calculated too low compared to the neighboring market price.
② Since the obstacles of this case cannot be transferred, the compensation should be calculated on the premise that the compensation should not be paid for the relocation cost, but rather be paid for the expropriation.
B. (2) In the development of the logic of judgment on the claim, the second claim is examined.
In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant obstacles could not be transferred, and rather, Nos. 1 and 2.