beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 830,075,400 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from September 9, 2009 to September 6, 2012.
Reasons
1. Details of the ruling and the result of appraisal by the court;
(a) Project approval and public notice - Project name: B housing site development project (hereinafter “instant project”): Public notice - The defendant on September 21, 2007
B. Adjudication of expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation on July 16, 2009 - Land Expropriation: D land for factories in Yangju-si owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) and buildings on its ground: September 8, 2009 - Compensation: 2,729,759,250 won (2,289,470,400 won of the instant land): Appraisal Corporation and Korea Appraisal Board;
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection on December 17, 2009 - Contents of the ruling: 2,762,519,600 won (the instant land 2,321,268,600 won) to increase compensation - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation and one appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal” together with an appraisal corporation in an expropriation ruling; the results of the appraisal shall be referred to as “adjudication appraisal”; and the results of appraisal shall be referred to as “adjudication appraisal”).
D. - Expert E: 2,480,576,00 won (hereinafter above appraiser E; hereinafter above appraiser E; hereinafter referred to as "first court appraisal") - Expert F: 2,460,959,200 won (hereinafter above appraiser ; hereinafter referred to as "second court appraisal"; hereinafter referred to as "second court appraisal") for the land of this case - The fact that there is no dispute over the result of the appraisal / [the ground for recognition], Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including number), the result of the appraisal entrusted to the appraiser E and F of this court, the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal entrusted by each market price appraisal with the appraiser E and F of this court;
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion appraisal and the amount of compensation based on the first and second court appraisal are merely 60% of the value of the instant land calculated based on the publicly assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2007 (1,230,000 square meters x 3,164 square meters) and cannot be deemed reasonable.
As a result, the ruling appraiser and the second court appraiser have mistakenly selected the comparison standard when appraising the land of this case.