logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.02.12 2016구합50970
손실보상금
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 8,922,00 for Plaintiff A and 5% for each year from January 23, 2016 to February 12, 2018; and (b) thereafter, for the following reasons.

Reasons

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business approval and public announcement - Business name: Cuffer green belt development project (stage 3) (stage 1) - Business approval: Public announcement of project approval: D public announcement of Incheon Metropolitan City on September 29, 2008; and E public notification of Incheon Metropolitan City on September 14, 2015; Defendant:

B. Decision on expropriation made on December 8, 2015 by the Incheon Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “instant land”) - The expropriation date shall be 892,20,000 won for the instant land and 328,576,500 won for the instant land (assessment as a green area) - The appraisal corporation and the deputy appraisal corporation in order of the order of 1,487 square meters and 549 square meters for G owned by the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant land”). The expropriation date: January 22, 2016

C. Results of the court’s commission of appraiser H - Conditional appraisal - If the appraisal value is premised on the specific use area of the land of this case as Class II general residential area, the land of this case 2,081,80,800,000, and the land of this case 691,740,000, under the premise that the specific use area of the land of this case is a natural green area, the land of this case 1 land of this case 901,122,00, and the land of this case 2 land of this case 302,49,000 [based on recognition], there is no dispute; Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4; Eul’s evidence No. 1, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the main number; hereinafter the same shall apply); the result of an appraisal commission to appraiser H

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion (1) is that the development project of this case was implemented through the implementation plan authorization of the urban planning facility decision (green belt decision) that was unexecution status for a long time (public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on February 9, 1970, the J of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on May 16, 1975, and each public notice order (hereinafter "the new decision of this case" and "instant modified decision"). Thus, the specific use area of the land of this case is based on the newly established decision of this case and modified decision (before February 9, 1970 or May 16, 1975).

arrow